The AFL-CIO has proposed making some of the most sweeping changes since the Federation’s founding in 1955.  These changes include:

• Creating Industry Coordinating Committees which will help workers have real power against giant corporate conglomerates;
• Shifting huge resources to organizing and politics which will encourage new organizing among unions and link organizing and politics;
• Empowering the Executive Committee which will share power at the AFL-CIO among many of the largest unions;
• Ensuring diversity in leadership;
• Strengthening grassroots movement—because change at the top isn’t enough.

The AFL-CIO proposals for change and those of the Change to Win unions are very similar - - much of the difference lies in technical changes in the constitution and in policy.  Once you get past the rhetoric, it’s clear that the AFL-CIO has very aggressive proposals addressing the central issues of the current debate.  And it’s clear that the differences are not enough to justify splitting the union movement. 

BUILDING POWER FOR WORKERS IN INDUSTRIES: CREATING INDUSTRY COORDINATING COMMITTEES

Both the AFL-CIO and Change to Win have proposed amendments creating Industry Coordinating Committees (ICCs) that would unite workers and their unions within an industry to enhance strategic growth opportunities and improve working conditions.

ICCs represent a significant innovation in the Federation’s relationship with its affiliates by creating a formal mechanism to harness unions’ collective strength in the face of corporate consolidation and globalization.  The AFL-CIO’s proposal seeks to maximize both democracy and flexibility within the ICCs in order to ensure full and active participation by our unions.  Our proposal builds ICCs to succeed.  At the same time, it calls for a thorough and honest evaluation of their success that is consistent with their pioneering nature. 

In accordance with these principles, the central features of the AFL-CIO’s proposal include the following:

• ICCs are established by the Executive Council at request of and in consultation with affiliated unions in industries (or geographic, employer-based, occupational, or other appropriate subdivisions thereof) strategically important to labor movement growth.

• All affiliates recognized or certified as collective bargaining representatives of workers within that industry are required to be in the ICC.

• Only AFL-CIO affiliates may become members of an ICC. 

• ICCs will develop and implement a strategic organizing plan:

o       Unions in the ICC that organize according to this plan will receive Article XXI protections; 

• Unions outside the ICC are prohibited from organizing within the jurisdiction of the ICC.

• ICCs will develop bargaining strategies and contract standards which are enforceable through Article XX.

• ICCs may establish additional procedures and remedies (including injunctive relief, for example) to enforce their organizing plans and contract standards.

• ICCs make decisions by consensus or, if consensus cannot be reached, by per capita vote; member unions may appeal these decisions to the Executive Council.

While everyone agrees that we need ICCs, Change to Win’s proposal adopts a “top down” structure imposed upon affiliates even where they do not want to participate, and disenfranchises the Federation’s smaller unions.  Under the Change to Win proposal:

Ø      Only unions with significant membership density in an ICC’s core jurisdiction are entitled to participate, but all unions must respect the organizing jurisdictions established by the ICCs.

Ø      The Executive Committee creates ICCs with no consultation from affected unions, and even if affiliates within a core jurisdiction do not believe that an ICC would benefit their organizing or bargaining efforts.

Ø      There is no voting provision – unlike the AFL-CIO’s consensus provision -- that preserves the voice of each union within the ICC;

Ø      There is no provision for appealing a decision of the ICC.  This would deprive not only the ICC’s members, but also those unions who are barred from participating in the ICC but are nonetheless bound by its decisions, of any due process whatsoever.

ORGANIZING

The AFL-CIO and Change to Win agree that unions must make major investments in strategic organizing to increase membership and that the AFL-CIO must reorder its efforts to provide greater incentives, coordination, and support to strategic organizing.  Stripped of the Change to Win rhetoric, the diference between the two proposals centers solely around the amount of money that the Federation should make available for organizing, and even that difference has been vastly overstated.

The AFL-CIO proposes a $22.5 million Strategic Organizing Fund -- a $10 million increase over the current fund with the goal of stimulating unions to invest substantially in more organizing, and increasing support for workers’ freedom to form unions:

• $15 million would go back to unions for organizing if they meet standards established by the Executive Council and Organizing Committee, including dedicating at least 30 percent of their annual revenue to strategic organizing;

• $7.5 million would assist affiliates’ strategic organizing campaigns that are important to the entire labor movement (e.g., Wal-Mart, Comcast, FedEx, Toyota, major public employers).

• Continue to provide top-level assistance to national unions to build strategic programs, train senior/lead organizers;

• Ramp up efforts to change public policies to help restore workers’ freedom to form unions, including training 100,000 worksite stewards to defend workers’ freedom to form unions.

Change to Win

Change to Win neither addresses the need to build organizing capacity among all unions, nor addresses the need to change public policy to defend workers’ freedom to form unions.  Change to Win wants the AFL-CIO to rebate half of its per capita tax – up to $45 million per year -- to unions that have a strategic plan and commitment to organizing in their core industries.   But unions that devote as little as 10 percent of their resources or $2 million  to organizing could qualify for the rebate under Change to Win’s criteria, thus providing millions of dollars to unions that have not demonstrated a commitment to strategic organizing.

Change to Win also wants to create a strategic center within the AFL-CIO, using $25 million from current Federation funds, to finance large, multi-union campaigns against Wal-Mart and other global corporations.  In combination with the proposed rebate, this fund would leave the Federation with no resources to pursue other important programs that protect working families.

DIVERSITY IN THE AFL-CIO’S GOVERNING BODIES

The AFL-CIO Executive Council has proposed constitutional amendments to make sure our leadership reflects the diversity of our rank-and-file.  The Change to Win unions have proposed virtually no comparable amendments, and their proposals could lead to less diversity, not more, at the Convention and on the Executive Council.

Diversify the Convention:

AFL-CIO:  Require each national/international union Convention delegation to “generally reflect the racial and gender diversity of its membership.”

Change to Win:  No proposal, so no change from status quo, which does not require any diversity.

Diversify the Executive Council:

AFL-CIO:  Increase from 10 to 15 the minimum number of positions on any slate for 51 Executive Council positions that must be devoted to diversity – and they cast 15 out of 54 votes (51 Vice Presidents and 3 Executive Officers).

Change to Win:  Eliminate elections entirely for the Executive Council, instead give each union a seat to vote its membership, and impose no diversity requirements except give AFL-CIO constituency groups seven votes out of 13 million. 

AFL-CIO:  Fill Council vacancies consistent with diversity goals.  

Change to Win:  Fill vacancies automatically by union irrespective of diversity consequences.

AFL-CIO:  Give Council option to add three more seats to achieve even greater diversity, so potentially at least 18 of 57 votes.

Change to Win:  Include constituency group representatives on Council, with just seven votes out of 13 million.

Diversity on New Executive Committee:

AFL-CIO:  Presidents of largest 15 unions, plus four Council members from unions not otherwise represented on the Committee who reflect “the diversity of the labor movement, including its women members and members of color, as well as its sectoral breadth.”

Change to Win:  Presidents of 13 largest unions, plus four members to reflect “race, sex, ethnicity, religion, age, physical ability, national origin, sexual orientation and gender diversity” of unions and workers. 

THE NEW EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

In 2003, President Sweeney created an Executive Committee that has met on a regular basis to guide the Executive Officers in conducting the Federation’s programs.  Both the AFL-CIO Executive Council and the Change to Win unions have proposed to add the Executive Committee to the AFL-CIO Constitution.  There are virtually no differences between their proposals.  

AFL-CIO: Places the three Executive Officers (President, Secretary-Treasurer, and Executive Vice President) and the presidents of the fifteen largest unions on the Committee. 

Change to Win: Places the three Executive Officers and the presidents of the thirteen largest unions on the Committee.

AFL-CIO: Also places more Executive Council members on the Committee to ensure that it reflects the diversity of the labor movement and its sectoral breadth. 

Change to Win: Places four more persons on the Committee to reflect the diversity of the membership and of working men and women.

Under both proposals, the Executive Committee would meet at least four times a year and govern the Federation between meetings of the Executive Council.  Change to Win’s proposal lists more aspects of the Committee’s authority than the AFL-CIO’s proposal does.  But once the Constitution gives the Committee the overall authority to govern, any specific listing is more descriptive than substantive.

AFL-CIO:  The Executive Council should be composed of 54 union members elected by delegates at the AFL-CIO Convention:  the President, Secretary-Treasurer, Executive Vice President and 51 Vice Presidents, with slates required to include at least 15 positions reflecting the labor movement’s diversity (and casting 15 of 54 votes), and no individual entitled to any position.

Change to Win:  Eliminate elections for all AFL-CIO positions except President, Secretary-Treasurer and Executive Vice President; convert the Executive Council to the current General Board structure, comprised of the principal officer of every affiliated national union and (casting seven votes out of 13 million) appointed representatives of constituency and other groups, with no other diversity requirements.

STRENGTHENING STATE AND LOCAL LABOR MOVEMENTS

Strengthening state and local labor movements is one of the key components of the AFL-CIO’s lead resolution, “A Plan to Help Workers Win: Uniting our Power to Build a Stronger, Growing Labor Movement.”  This focus on our grassroots  program underscores the AFL-CIO’s commitment to a democratic, integrated labor movement.  It reflects our understanding that we need strong, coordinated, and unified labor movement in order to produce results for working families. 

Under the resolution, the AFL-CIO has committed itself to providing financial, strategic, programmatic and staff support to our local labor movements.  We support bringing together local labor movements where necessary in order to create larger central bodies with sufficient capacity and resources to build an aggressive mobilization program. 

We would require central labor councils and state federations in a state to do joint budgeting and planning every two years and work to develop grassroots leadership.

Change to Win’s proposals are silent with respect to state and local labor movements. 

STRATEGIC UNION MERGERS

The AFL-CIO Executive Council is proposing that the Convention amend the Constitution and adopt a specific policy to implement a “proactive, industry-based strategic merger policy.”  The Change to Win unions propose an identical amendment.

The accompanying explanations by the AFL-CIO and Change to Win differ only as to process; Change to Win includes some more specific incentives and severe loss of autonomy for unions over their merger and affiliation decisions.  Compare:

• AFL-CIO and Change to Win:  Require the AFL-CIO to “implement a proactive, industry-based strategic merger policy,” through a process (currently in the Constitution) of “voluntary agreement or voluntary merger.”

• AFL-CIO and Change to Win:  Unite workers in common jurisdictions in order to enhance bargaining strength, union growth and the lives of workers.

• AFL-CIO and Change to Win:  In September 2005, the Executive Committee shall establish a Blue Ribbon Panel that will evaluate union jurisdictions and merger strategies, and then present recommendations to the Executive Committee by February 2006.

• AFL-CIO:  The Executive Committee shall then make findings and recommendations to the Executive Council as to how to accomplish strategic mergers.
  
  
• Change to Win:  The Executive Committee shall develop an incentive program for mergers.  If a union resists an Executive Committee recommendation, the Committee can deny Article XX and XXI protection and AFL-CIO resources to the union involved, unless the union conducts an informed vote of its membership on the issue.  (None of the Change to Win unions, and few other unions, conduct membership votes when they enter into mergers.)  The Executive Committee must approve charters of new affiliates only in light of the merger policy, and must approve all mergers of AFL-CIO unions and affiliations of independent unions.  (This would confer unprecedented authority on 13 or 15 AFL-CIO unions over the internal structural decisions of other unions.)