Labor’s Big Split

David Moberg July 26, 2005

The much-anticipated split in the labor movement finally occurred Monday, as SEIU and the Teamsters left the AFL-CIO. More defections are likely, especially the UFCW (food and commercial workers), but UNITE HERE and the Laborers are being more coy for the moment about keeping options open. The rhetoric on both sides but especially from the Change to Win Coalition led by SEIU often seemed overblown: the track record of their members is decidedly mixed and not a sterling example of the new strategy for organizing they advocate. And the record of the unions remaining in the AFL-CIO is not as horrible or averse to organizing strategically as CtW statements suggest. Now the AFL-CIO is preparing to adopt many of the compromise proposals that CtW said were totally inadequate. Those should all improve and strengthen the work of unions that remain in the AFL-CIO. There are plenty of recriminations that could be made about the split. In my humble opinion, AFL-CIO president John Sweeney should have retired as he originally promited, opening up the debate on strategy and leadership. His record was not bad, even though he fell short of even his own goals, but sometimes it's just time to move on. But the CtW unions could have accomplished much of what they wanted still operating within the AFL-CIO, even as CtW, without producing a split that carries high risks. At this point, however, the big challenge is how to manage the effects of the split. It's critical to maintain the greatest degree of cooperation and solidarity and to remain focused on long-term progressive goals as well as short-term organizing or political gains. The two factions--soon to be competing labor federations--should be held to a high standard by union members and allies: solidarity, progressive politics, avoidance of raiding and organizing conflicts when possible, much more ambitious and effective organizing, engagement of wider constituencies and groups of workers with innovative forms of organizing, and the strengthening of involvement and democratic control by members. Recrimination and resentment won't help either side, but there is a chance that rivalry could stimulate innovation and organizing that labor desperately needs. At least that's the best we can hope for now.

Please consider supporting our work.

I hope you found this article important. Before you leave, I want to ask you to consider supporting our work with a donation. In These Times needs readers like you to help sustain our mission. We don’t depend on—or want—corporate advertising or deep-pocketed billionaires to fund our journalism. We’re supported by you, the reader, so we can focus on covering the issues that matter most to the progressive movement without fear or compromise.

Our work isn’t hidden behind a paywall because of people like you who support our journalism. We want to keep it that way. If you value the work we do and the movements we cover, please consider donating to In These Times.

Donate Now

David Moberg, a former senior editor of In These Times, was on staff with the magazine from when it began publishing in 1976 until his passing in July 2022. Before joining In These Times, he completed his work for a Ph.D. in anthropology at the University of Chicago and worked for Newsweek. He received fellowships from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Nation Institute for research on the new global economy.