If things cannot get any better, if we are awash in a sea of jobs and good living, is John Sweeney a dreamer?
He doesn’t think so. Big labor, he insists, will become big again in American life. Workers still need unions. He has, indeed, pumped up unions’ once-meager hand of cards since becoming the AFL-CIO’s head four years ago in an unprecedented election battle led by union leaders distressed by labor’s free fall.
Today, unions have more political clout. They spend more on organizing. Big business pays attention to them.
But their slide toward extinction goes on. They account for just 9.5 percent of the nation’s private work force, and only 13.9 percent overall, the lowest rate since the Great Depression.
And so, a heavy burden rests on the shoulders of the Bronx-born, soft-spoken 65-year-old, who looks more like a cherubic Irish grandfather than a fire-breathing union leader.
Despite a penchant for somber suits and bright suspenders, he has blue-blood blue-collar roots: his father drove a bus, his mother was a maid. He dug graves while going to college, where he studied economics, and climbed the bureaucratic ranks of the Service Employees International Union.
THE STATE OF THE UNION: Unions account for just 9.5 percent of the nation’s private work force, and only 13.9 percent overall, the lowest rate since the Great Depression.
Q: You say unions are doing well. But how can you be optimistic when the percentage of workers in unions continues to drop? I would think the current number should be a tremendous panic button.
A: Some of you pessimists have to take a broader look at what’s going on, a broader look at what’s changing. We haven’t turned the corner yet, but we certainly are at the corner. Every indication we see is a very positive one. What we are doing is really setting the groundwork for the rebuilding of the labor movement for years to come.
Q: There has to be a point where you say, `OK, the numbers are beginning to change.’ If you have the grandstand in place, but there’s no one to fill it, what you are going to do?
A: But that’s not what the facts are. The grandstand is filling and it is filling in two areas. The base is being put in place for reversing the trend toward a declining share of the workplace, but it is very, very slow. We never had any expectations that it was going to be booming. At the same time, the rank and file, the locals are very energized.
The best example is (the defeat of the anti-union) Proposition 226 in California. If that can be done in a state like California, where grass-roots activists can mobilize and turn the issue around, keep the momentum going, elect a governor, re-elect a senator, and elect majorities in the two houses of the legislature, it can be done in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio.
Q: Don’t you think there is a difference? Unions are very successful when they want to use their power in politics. But you are in much trouble when it comes to organizing new members. You have too many obstacles.
A: No. No. We have a lot of obstacles. But we’ll never say we have too many obstacles. We are committed to remaking this movement and we are going to try to change the things that aren’t successful. I firmly believe that what we are putting in place here is a revitalized labor movement for the long haul.
Q: Who will be the new members? Will you have as many members now that you have a tremendous shrinkage in blue-collar jobs?
A: You are going to see workers in many of the new industries looking to some form of organization, association–some way to address their issues. The situation in HMOs has really moved doctors to realize they have to come together in some way to improve the quality of care and to improve their own standard of living and dignity. What we saw with teachers years ago we will see with the medical profession. What we saw with public workers moving toward some form of association, we will see with the high-tech workers. Just look at the work that is going on now at Microsoft with folks communicating with each other about their grievances.
Q: But these are different kinds of workers. White-collar workers–doctors, people at high-tech companies–don’t want to pick on the bosses. They want protection, and unions have to learn to change their theme. Is that possible? Can unions change their approach?
A: I disagree with you. I think that some of these situations are getting so bad that they do want to pick on the bosses. They do realize that the bosses aren’t giving them the respect for the jobs they do, and respect for the contributions that they make. I do believe that you are going to see this among high-wage as well as low-wage workers.
Q: How about the mine workers, and auto workers. Unions in declining industries. How can they grow?
A: There is room for the organization of new members in just about every industry. Even in industries that are declining, there is potential new membership there for them. The United Auto Workers union is growing. The steelworkers have been hard hit, but there is still tremendous potential for them to grow.
Q: This gets back to the issue of turf battles. There are seven unions organizing doctors. Fifteen organizing university clerical workers. Are unions going to back off and cooperate or are they going to continue the warfare?
A: I think you are going to see many unions organizing in the same highly unorganized industries. There are millions of workers out there. It’s going to take the resources of several unions to really have an impact on those areas. The area that I’m most focused on is finding ways to avoid competing for the same workers. I think that we are going to be making some changes that will hopefully convince unions to decide which ones should be doing which organizing campaigns.
Why don’t you wave your magic wand and say `I am the boss of organized labor. I want everyone to follow these rules.’
A: We have 75 autonomous unions. Each has a president. As president of the federation I intend to work with them. Over the past few years I have shown that it is possible. We have brought together tremendous solidarity. The solidarity we saw in support of the UPS strike is just one example.
Q: That’s a good example. Here you had a union that had a great victory and then it lost its president because of wrongdoing. Unions have had a lot of problems because of corruption. How do you overcome the public’s perception that corruption persists among a few unions?
A: I don’t make any excuses for corruption. I think the Teamsters union is a great union; I am happy to see that its members have a president and I have high expectations of the Teamsters coming back to the good organizing and the good bargaining that they have shown in the past. I believe that the perception of the labor movement is an issue that we are very interested in improving. A lot of what we have been doing over the past few years far outweighs any of the few incidents.
Q: Unions have political clout. Why don’t you get more back from the Democrats?
A: The Democrats need a majority (in Congress).
Q: How about the states?
Q: I think you are seeing in the states where there is a majority of members of the state legislature who have been supported by workers, promoted and advancing good legislation. The realities of life is that you have to elect people regardless of party who have the political will to pay attention to workers. We have seen a Congress pursue this whole impeachment process for so long, ignoring all of the expressions of the majority of the American people. Are you worried now that Clinton has been so badly damaged that the goals you have for the next few years will not be met?
A: I have every reason to be confident that the president will pursue a pro-working agenda.
Q: How important is the Midwest in the coming presidential election.
A: The Midwest is the most important. I look at the California experience, and I think that we can, in states like Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, really mobilize grass-roots membership, and in some of those states we have even a higher percentage of voters than California.
Q: This was a job you never wanted. When I write the history of your time in office, what am I going to say?
A: I think that I lived up to my campaign promises. I think we’ve had real positive results. But it is not me. I said from the beginning that it really was not about who was heading the AFL-CIO, it was where is the AFL-CIO headed. My best asset is bringing people together after an election that could have split the labor movement.
Q: What has been your biggest disappointment?
A: I really am anxious to see the organizing to produce more results. I think that we are coming to that point. The fact we are doubling our organizing institute’s goal is one indication that people are interested in organizing as a career. My biggest disappointment is the meanness we have encountered in some of the leadership in Congress and the anti-worker spirit of some of the more recently elected people who don’t know the issues of working families and who don’t care. And the greediness of business in terms of a very successful economy in which everything is going well except the wages of workers.
———-
An edited transcript.
