TAKING BACK AMERICA FOR WORKING PEOPLE: COMMUNITY BY COMMUNITY

Bruce Colburn. Working USA. Armonk: Dec 2004. Vol. 8, Iss. 2; pg. 229, 3 pgs Copyright M. E. Sharpe Inc. Dec 2004
[Headnote] Even in an environment hostile to organized labor, unions and workers can advance through taking back power on a local and regional level. While the neoliberal economic agenda of the U.S. and key international organizations do not take into account worker rights, organized labor is winning campaigns on a local level that in the future will lay the groundwork for a stronger labor movement. In the most unfriendly regions that are hostile to worker organizing, local labor councils are waging campaigns to advance labor rights by supporting ongoing worker organizing that will engender power down the road. Through mobilization of members and nonmembers, organized labor is defeating politicians beholden to big businesses and electing labor-friendly officials on a local and regional level. As workers are displaced by corporate restructuring and shift production, unions must employ regional models of organizing to reach workers in their communities and new workplaces.

In 1995 Central Labor Councils (CLCs) and the national American Federation of LaborCongress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) launched Union Cities as a strategy and framework not simply to change and strengthen local labor movements but to rebuild communities. Union Cities was bold in its design and objectives. It aimed to take political and legislative control to working people and to steer the economy toward good jobs in the key metropolitan areas of this country. These case studies represent vastly different regions in their union density, demographics, and in the state of their communities and labor movement. Yet, in all four, local labor movements have been changed, strengthened, and have won real victories for working people. Thankfully these cases are not alone. Local leaders in different parts of the country have begun the work to produce more stories of success in supporting organizing drives and raising economic standards through local legislation. This activism has begun to put into place new and sustainable forms of labor community alliances that promise to produce innovative and bold agendas for their communities. The potential basis for working class power is being laid in a growing number of metro areas. Regional power building takes place at a time when huge changes are sweeping the nation and the world. Issues of globalization, the devastation of our industrial base, the information age, and the domination of our culture and institutions by the right wing have been well documented. Meanwhile, the U.S. labor movement-despite some signs of progress-remains remarkably unchanged. This is also the world in which local labor movements live.

Recently different unions have raised a fundamental debate about the labor movement's future-one that will certainly sharpen in 2005. Unfortunately, because the discussion has mostly focused on the national movement's organization, the valuable regional building blocks identified by our cases risk being overlooked. Yet, a number of Union Cities Central Labor Councils are determined to get this story into the debate. Our cases and other stories like them suggest a vision of what a different labor movement would look like in metropolitan areas-one where new workers organize and new social movements are launched. The local leaders in our cases and other metropolitan areas need a debate over labor's future, which links national change to regional power building. In truth, in many ways the Union Cities movement has hit a roadblock. The lack of an organizing and growth strategy on the part of many unions has left many Councils feeling "they have built movements with new strength but nobody has come." Even in the strongest cases, the ranks of unions with powerbuilding strategies to match the ambitions of regional power building remain modest. Yet, a roadblock is not a dead end. The key lessons coming out of these case studies point toward future changes necessary to build on success. So what are these lessons? First, a local power-building movement can be built even within difficult national and international conditions. Whether looking at progress made, real victories, or future potentials, these local movements offer one of the most important vehicles for future progress and real change. Even in areas with low union density and in conservativedominated states like Texas and Colorado, local leaders have made significant progress. Second, successful regional movement building works in three key areas. It has been able to elect progressives to local political offices and use this political operation to pass legislation and change public policy. This success in turn provides a basis for unions to use mobilization and leverage support to help organizing drives. Indeed, in the long-term power building promises to actually improve the overall environment for organizing in local communities. Finally, as this regional work develops sustainable labor-community alliances, it lays the groundwork for developing agendas capable of rallying whole communities and building major social movements. The CLC can play a crucial role in convening these alliances. Third, as a number of CLCs have demonstrated an entire region rather than just a jurisdiction's main city provides the natural basis for building real power. Workers no longer live where they work so the regional model allows for both a successful political and workplace strategy. Economic markets and media markets are also organized on a regional basis. Power building uses existing and revitalized strength in a main city to expand into surrounding areas. As a parallel example, Upper New York has developed a successful model of developing regional "Area Labor Federations." Only a nationwide strategy based in the fifty key metropolitan areas of this country can serve as a catalyst to a major and lasting change. Fourth, these case studies clearly show the importance of local labor movements opening up to the community and seeing community-based groups as real partners in building a movement. Such links need to be repeated and built on across the country. CLCs should be

open to having community groups affiliate with the council as full members. Likewise, "minority unions" of workers should be welcomed into the Central Labor Council or the newly formed Area Labor Federation. Fifth, the vast majority of CLCs, even in major metropolitan areas, do not have enough resources based on per capita dues to build the kind of local labor movement needed. In our cases and other examples, some extremely entrepreneurial and creative CLC leaders have been able to stitch together extra capacity through grants and other means. Yet, as more local labor movements start down the path to regional power, such funding sources may not prove sustainable at a nationwide level. Local labor movements, especially in low union density growth areas, need to be guaranteed a certain minimum level of funding. Finally, each of our examples features a common thread of visionary and resourceful leadership. They are all risk takers operating in a system that too often punishes rather than rewards risks. This balance of rewards and obstacles must change if regional power building is to grow to the scale of dozens of key metropolitan areas. Small progress in diversity of leadership must be built on. To this end, over the last three years a partnership of the Central Labor Council Advisory Committee (made up of CLC leaders), the national AFL-CIO, and the George Meany Center has established a program for leadership development. Like the rest of the regional power-building movement, the program is driven by peer to peer learning and the actions of CLC leaders themselves. Combining a guaranteed level of funding with increased leadership development would help create the space needed to develop more change-oriented leaders. Leadership development, however, can only pay off if there is an active system for transforming or replacing local leaders who are not building a successful program. The current system of trusteeship only for malfeasance does not work. For decades the traditional roles and resources of CLCs did not lend themselves toward attracting into leadership positions activists oriented toward labor movement transformation. Yet, as our cases demonstrate, CLCs can become a vehicle for sparking the kind of history-making progressive movement that so many within the ranks of labor want to see. San Jose, Los Angeles, Houston, and Denver provide sample snapshots in time of a movement on the rise. Hopefully, our case studies and research network will prove part of a growing process to analyze and document this work. Only by telling the stories of regional power building will this work gain greater support and recognition as a key component for a changing labor movement and a movement to change this country.
[Author Affiliation] Bruce Colburn is Deputy Director of the Field Mobilization Department, AFL-CIO. Previously Colburn was a leader in the Milwaukee regional labor movement.