UNITY & INDEPENDENCE
Supplement to The Organizer Newspaper
P.O. Box 40009, San Francisco, CA 94140.
Tel. (415) 641-8616; fax: (415) 626-1217.
email: ilcinfo@earthlink,net
Please Excuse Duplicate Postings
------------------------------------------------

Dear Sisters and Brothers:

The article below from the Sept. 4 New York Times titled, "Union Head Would Back Bill Without Card Check," shows how far the trade union officialdom has backtracked from its own program under pressure from the Obama administration and the Pelosi leadership of the Democratic Party. It shows, moreover, that labor will not be able to win its demands if it continues to accept what the Democrats are "willing to put on the table" -- rather than fight for what working people need and deserve, which is what "should be on the table."

Earlier this year, the AFL-CIO gathered more than 2 million signatures of union members and supporters in support of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), whose core provision is card check. Large sums of money were spent lobbying members of Congress for this bill, but no major mobilizations of union members and supporters were organized to press for EFCA with card check.

Obama during his entire election campaign stump had promised EFCA with card check. But no sooner was he elected than he and his administration began to backtrack. In mid-March, Obama's top economic adviser, Larry Summers, added his name to a corporate-funded ad in the New York Times that stated that unionization causes employment and that EFCA is a bad idea at this time.

Soon after Arlen Specter, Dianne Feinstein and a handful of other elected officials went public to announce their desire to find a "compromise" resolution -- one that essentially keeps the anti-union labor laws on the books, but tweaks them just a bit. That's the meaning of this new EFCA without card check.

When Obama, Summers, and Feinstein began to backpedal, the top union officials remained silent. They did not take the politicians to task for this about-face. They told their members internally that this may be all we can get at this time; this may be all that our Democratic "friends" are willing to "put on the table."

SEIU President Andy Stern was the first out of the gate to announce publicly that the labor movement could accept labor law reform without card check. Stern had made it clear early on -- as far back as his Dec. 10, 2008, interview with The Nation magazine -- that the task of the labor movement today must be "to give Obama what he wants" -- as opposed to putting forward labor's own agenda. Stern stressed the need to pursue "interdependence" with the employers and the government -- not to push for our "independence" (meaning NOT to present and fight for our own class interests, independently, if this meets with opposition from the corporate class).

Self-defeating Strategy

The same self-defeating strategy is being pursued by the top union leadership in relation to healthcare and the fight for jobs.

On healthcare, almost all the top union officials tell their members privately that what the country really needs today is single-payer. They acknowledge that a "public option" will mean very little to union members, most of whom would not benefit from any public option, but they say that this is the best we can expect to get at this time. Some officials even acknowledge that a public option will only keep the disastrous for-profit healthcare system in place, with the insurance companies firmly in the driver's seat, and with very few, if any, benefits for the majority of working people.

The rationale is the same as with EFCA: The "public option," we are told, is all that the Obama administration and Pelosi are willing to put on the table today; single-payer, while urgently needed, is "off the table." But this is a strategy that can only lead to more and more setbacks for the trade unions and for working people, in general.

Almost one year ago, the American people rose up in one voice to oppose the first Wall Street bailout demanded by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Millions of letters and calls were made by working people to demand that the Congress reject the Paulson bailout plan. And on Sept. 30, 2008, the U.S. Congress -- under immense pressure from this spontaneous movement from below -- voted to reject the $700 billion bankers' bailout scheme.

It took Obama and Pelosi to lobby the members of Congress who had voted "no" -- particularly the members of the Congressional Black Caucus -- to turn them around and support the Paulson Plan, the first of many government bailouts of the billionaire speculators who got us into this economic mess in the first place.

Obama and Pelosi have made it clear to all who wish to look reality squarely in the face that their top priority is to bail out the banks and the profiteers. And this they have done, to the tune of close to $4 trillion (including funds from the Federal Reserve), which has produced a much-touted "economic recovery" that has only created more unemployment and led to more foreclosures and more hardships for working people -- particularly the most oppressed sector of Blacks and Latinos. Their "jobless recovery" is nothing but a cruel joke for the majority of the American people.

The Obama plan is not a jobs-creation plan. Extremely little stimulus funding is actually going to create jobs. The only ones benefiting from this government largesse are the bankers, speculators and CEOs, whose hefty bonuses are finally getting some media attention of late.

The labor movement needs to put its own jobs-creation program on the table and fight like hell to win it. It needs to craft a bill for the U.S. Congress that bans all layoffs and that creates full employment through a genuine public-works, jobs-creation program.

The labor movement needs to stop the backtracking on EFCA, single-payer, and the fight to stop all layoffs and win full employment. It needs to stop accepting the best-possible alternative thrown at us by the robber class, as Sister Cindy Sheehan calls the corporate elite who rule this country.

Challenge to AFL-CIO Convention

At the upcoming national AFL-CIO convention in Pittsburgh, resolutions submitted by labor bodies from across the country will be debated. Seventy-two resolutions call for single-payer. Some of them, such as the resolution adopted by the Troy Area (New York) Labor Council [see below], also calls on the AFL-CIO to organize a "Healthcare is a Human Right" Solidarity March and Rally in Washington, DC in support of single-payer.

Likewise, a resolution from the San Francisco Labor Council calls on the AFL-CIO to support the National March for Jobs in Pittsburgh on Sept. 20 -- on the eve of the G20 Summit. The SFLC resolution states, in part:

"There is no recovery in sight from the current economic crisis. Although government measures have enabled Wall Street to pocket hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, still unemployment, foreclosures and poverty continue to soar.

"In September the eyes of the world will be on Pittsburgh, where the G20 countries will meet on what to do about the global crisis, and this will be an excellent opportunity for labor and its allies to present OUR workers' recovery agenda. ...

"A March for Jobs will take place in Pittsburgh on Sunday, Sept. 20, calling for a real jobs program to provide full-time, living wage jobs. Instead of bailing out banks and funding wars, there must be money to create jobs, provide healthcare, stop foreclosures and bail out the unemployed."

Other resolutions still call for the AFL-CIO not to backtrack on the Employee Free Choice Act and to support only a bill that would include card check.

All resolutions that point to this fighting strategy, to labor mobilizing in the streets for the demands of all working people and the oppressed, must be supported. Labor needs to assert its independence in relation to the Obama administration, Pelosi and the Democrats. It needs to get back into the streets.

Instead of just a "Healthcare is a Human Right" Solidarity March and Rally in Washington, DC, shouldn't the AFL-CIO convention issue a call for a National Solidarity Day III March -- to be held before the end of the year -- in support of a real jobs creation program, for single-payer healthcare, and for a real Employee Free Choice Act -- with card check?

This discussion on these proposals, we believe, needs to take place widely in the labor movement.

In solidarity,

Alan Benjamin
Co-Editor,
Unity & Independence
National Co-Coordinator,
Workers Emergency Recovery Campaign

********************

APPENDIX NO. 1

Union Head Would Back Bill Without Card Check

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published New York Times: September 4, 2009

WASHINGTON - The A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s president has signaled a significant shift to try to move a long-stalled pro-union bill, saying he would support a change that calls for speedy unionization elections, a provision that would replace the much-attacked card-check provision.

John J. Sweeney, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., said he would accept fast elections instead of card check in a stalled pro-union bill.

In an interview, John J. Sweeney, the federation's president, said he would accept a fast election campaign instead of card check because it would meet his goal of minimizing management interference during organizing drives.

Mr. Sweeney said he "could live with" fast or snap elections "as long as there is a fair process that protects workers against anti-union intimidation by employers and eliminates the threats to workers."

The move away from card check would be a victory for the business community. Randel Johnson, senior vice president for labor, immigration and employee benefits at the United States Chamber of Commerce, nonetheless criticized the proposal for elections after a short campaign.

"That has the effect as a practical matter of eliminating the ability of the employer to educate its employees about the potential adverse effects of unionization," Mr. Johnson said. "It still begs the question, what is wrong with the existing secret ballot process?"

In recent months, several crucial Democratic senators have told organized labor that they could not round up the 60 votes needed to assure passage of any bill containing card check.

Despite such warnings, labor leaders continued to cling publicly to the idea; Mr. Sweeney's comments were a major departure from that position.

"If modifying that in some way or another is going to bring some more votes for the bill, I think that's worth it," Mr. Sweeney said.

Under Mr. Sweeney's idea, a secret ballot would be held probably within five or 10 days of a substantial number of workers petitioning for a union. Such a brief length of time would be far different from the current practice when campaigns often last two months, giving companies time to persuade workers to vote against a union.

Even before President Obama took office, labor made it clear that its No. 1 legislative goal was a law that would make organizing easier, including a so-called card-check provision that required employers to recognize a union as soon as a majority of workers signed cards favoring a union.

But card check faced huge opposition from Republicans and corporations, which complained that it would largely replace secret ballots. Under current law, companies that face organizing drives can insist on secret-ballot elections, which unions say they often lose because of management's lengthy and intense anti-union campaigns.

In an interview Thursday evening, Richard Trumka, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s secretary-treasurer, who will become the federation's president on Sept. 16, stopped short of endorsing fast elections.

He said the A.F.L.-C.I.O. wanted to make sure that any legislation contained three components: a process in which workers were free of intimidation; greater penalties against employers that break the law during organizing drives, for instance by firing outspoken union supporters; and binding arbitration to prevent employers from indefinitely dragging out negotiations without ever reaching a contract.

Business groups denounce the binding arbitration provision, saying it would be wrong to have federally appointed officials issuing rulings that determine a company's wages, hours, pensions and working conditions.

Echoing Mr. Trumka, Mr. Sweeney said he would accept snap elections only as part of a bill that also called for binding arbitration and stiffer penalties against management.

Mr. Sweeney said President Obama had assured labor that as soon as health care legislation was passed - if it was passed - he would work with labor and the Democrats to pass the pro-union legislation, known as the Employee Free Choice Act.

Mr. Sweeney voiced optimism that the bill would pass.

"It's going to be this year," he said.

Mr. Sweeney said that corporate lobbyists would find it harder to attack fast elections than card check because business could no longer contend that labor wanted to eliminate "sacrosanct secret-ballot elections." But some corporate lobbyists are already attacking snap elections as "ambush elections."

David Bonior, a former House Democratic Whip who heads a group, America Rights at Work, that has campaigned for the pro-union bill, said he still hoped card check could be salvaged.

"The first preference for everybody in labor is the original bill," he said. "And if we preserve the principles of the original bill and there are some changes - and if we can get 80 to 90 percent of what we started with - I think people would move forward on that."

Meanwhile, a Gallup Poll released on Thursday found that while 66 percent of Americans continued to believe unions were beneficial to their own members, fewer than half of Americans - 48 percent, a record low - approved of unions. That was down from 59 percent a year ago.

********************

APPENDIX NO. 2

Resolution for Single Payer Health Care (HR676)
Submitted to the AFL-CIO Convention by the
Troy Area (New York) Labor Council

Whereas the cost and coverage of health insurance has become a major stumbling block in union contract negotiations, causing strikes, lock-outs, protracted deliberations and lower monetary offers by management.

Whereas the United States spends approximately twice as much of our gross domestic product as other developed nations on health care, yet remains the only industrialized country without universal coverage. 

Whereas the U. S. health system continues to treat health care as a commodity distributed according to the ability to pay, rather than as a human right to be dispersed according to medical need. 

Whereas the complex bureaucracy arising from our fragmented, for-profit, multi-payer system of healthcare financing consumes approximately 30 percent of the United States' healthcare spending.

Whereas the myriad of insurance companies and their different forms and coverage criteria force healthcare providers to hire staff solely to deal with the paperwork, further driving up costs.

Whereas more than 47 million people in the U. S. are currently without health insurance, another 40 million have inadequate coverage with high co-pays and deductibles, and many others are at risk of losing coverage. 

Whereas even those insured often experience unacceptable medical debt including personal bankruptcies and sometimes life-threatening delays in obtaining health care due to coverage denials.

Whereas proposals for "consumer directed health care" would worsen this situation by penalizing the sick, discouraging prevention, and burdening many working families with huge medical bills.

Whereas managed care and other market-based reforms have failed to contain health care costs, which now threaten the international competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers.

Whereas we should oppose the inclusion of private insurance companies in our health care system as their interests are counter to and often destructive of ours. 

Whereas a single-payer health care program would provide an effective mechanism for controlling skyrocketing health costs while covering all Americans.

Whereas HR676 meets or exceeds the AFL-CIO Health Care for America Campaign Principles.

Whereas HR676 would end deductibles and co-payments, and provide free choice of healthcare providers to patients as well as comprehensive prescription drug coverage to all.

Whereas HR676 would save billions annually by eliminating the administrative burdens, overhead and profits of the private health insurance industry and apply those savings to expanded and improved coverage for all.

Whereas HR676 would cover every person in the U. S. for all necessary medical care including prescription drugs, hospital, surgical, outpatient services, primary and preventive care, emergency services, dental, mental health, home health care, physical therapy, rehabilitation (including for substance abuse), vision care, chiropractic and long term care. 

Whereas a January 2009 study by the California Nurses Association, AFL-CIO, showed that passage of HR676 would provide a major stimulus to the economy, create over 2.6 million new permanent good-paying jobs, boost the economy with $317 billion in increased business and public revenues, add $100 billion in employee compensation and infuse public budgets with $44 billion in new tax revenues; and concluded that the broadest economic benefits directly accrue from the actual delivery and provision of health care, not the purchase of insurance.

Whereas HR676 has been endorsed by over 500 union organizations in 49 states including 125 Central Labor Councils and Area Labor Federations and 39 State AFL-CIOs (KY, PA, CT, OH, DE, ND, WA, SC, WY, VT, FL, WI, WV, SD, NC, MO, MN, ME, AR, MD-DC, TX, IA, AZ, TN, OR, GA, OK, KS, CO, IN, AL, CA, AK, MI, MT, NE, NY, NV & MA).

Therefore be it resolved that the AFL-CIO endorses HR676, the "United States National Health Care Act"; and

Be it further resolved, that the AFL-CIO join with and support other concerned organizations in educating and mobilizing broad public and political support for single payer health care; and

Be it further resolved, that the AFL-CIO persevere for passage of single payer health care to meet the needs of our members, our families, and all America, and not endorse or support any fallback program of mandated insurance or public option plans which include the wasteful, for-profit insurance industry; and

Be it further resolved, that the AFL-CIO actively lobby the White House and Congress for passage of single payer health care; and

Be it further resolved, that the AFL-CIO help organize and financially support a "Healthcare is a Human Right" Solidarity March and Rally in Washington, DC.

(resolution approved for submission to the AFL-CIO Convention)