What lucrative lobbying post do you think Stern will end up at?

believe he already holds a cushy spot on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform

Didn’t know that. Is that a paid position?

We will pay for it all right.

Good morning eCAHN and CBL.

No, it’s not a paid position on the debt commission, and no, Stern won’t go lobby somewhere. I fully expect him to lay low for a while; there’s a chance he’ll get involved with some element of health care implementation. But he’s been president for almost 15 years, and I think he just needs to get out for a while.

The one chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson?

OMG.

Didn’t mean to rain on your post. Unfortunately, sarcasm is what comes first to mind these days.

Off to write a followup on Sunday’s book salon.

I’ve been looking for you. Left you a response in EPUland, I think it was a week ago Sunday. Did you notice it or should I try to find it for you?

I treat anything from Politico with great skepticism.

I say good riddance. Stern was an Obama sychophant who put Obama’s presidency above the goals of the union he worked for. The death of EFCA didnt have to happen but it did bcz the unions were more concerned with access than they were with economic justice for working class families.

It’s been confirmed by myself, HuffPo, NYT, WaPo…. it’s true.

You might have mentioned that before. :-)

I think I saw it, but I’m not sure it was the one your talking about. If you can find it I’d like to see it.

Here’s the link.

sorry, put it up late last night and haven’t had a chance to go in yet and update. will do so now

SEIU put its trust in the Obama administration to deliver on its priorities. That was a political miscalculation, and now Stern has done all he can.

Thanks, eCAHN. That was sobering.

Well, Obama said he wanted to keep Sec’y Gates over from the Bush administration for a smooth transition. That’s done.

Now is the time — Secretary of Defense Andrew Stern!

(SEIU can then truly negotiate from a position of strength)

Now is the time — Secretary of Defense Andrew Stern!

Brilliant!

The death of EFCA happened because of Arlen Specter and Blanche Lincoln, who were dicking the unions around last summer and wouldn’t sign off on an agreement until the bill had been tremendously watered down to their satisfaction.

At that point Obama and Emanuel took over and wouldn’t let it on the floor of the Senate for a vote until health care was done. Here’s Trumka on FDL in August of last year:

The President/and Emanuel have both said they dont intend to bring Employee Free Choice Act up until Health Insurance Reform is done. Which gives us an additional reason to do Health Insurance Reform now! Teddy Kennedy who would be the 60th vote for cloture has just called on the MA Legislature to come up with a new process to allow the Governor to appoint his successor. Anything that any of you can do to move the process along in MA would be greatly appreciated. We WILL PASS EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT legislation, we will not allow our ”friends” to pass on this essential part of an economic recovery solution!

Reid would have let it on the floor because he needed the Culinary Workers to help him in his campaign. But by the time that health care was over, Scott Brown’s victory meant there was no more chance of whipping 60 votes in the caucus.

If it had been a bigger priority for the White House they could have pushed it earlier — most certainly they could have pressured Specter. But it wasn’t because of anything the unions did or didn’t do. The job of the unions is to represent their workers, and health care was a bigger priority for their workers than EFCA.

I think Jane’s response is mostly right.

Republicans made it clear from the get-go that EFCA was/is a filibuster issue, and there were never 60 firm votes for EFCA, even in the watered down version. If you think the unions didn’t work hard to get the 60, you just weren’t paying attention.

And I wouldn’t gloat about the departure of Stern if I were you. He could well retire from SEIU and emerge in a more prominent and powerful position.

Talk otherwise about Stern’s departure should be treated with great skepticism, particularly any rumors of ties to the decision against the breakaway NUHW that came down this week. The timing may look suspicious, but it’s just not a reason for Stern to leave. If anything, the decision vindicates his vision of how labor unions should be organized.

Stern (and SEIU) are increasingly isolated within the labor movement, not just because of his disastrous decision to wage war against NUHW, but also for his similarly doomed attempt to hi-jack Unite Here. It is sad indeed that Stern will be remembered most for these internecine quagmires (and the failure of CtW), and not for his original vision of aggressive, bottom-up, industry-wide organizing. IMO, the best reporting on Stern’s twin suicide missions is coming from Randy Shaw at Beyond Chron. Check out his latest piece, “SEIU at the Crossroads.”

Jane’s right, but isn’t it also true that SEIU’s very public civil war in California and Stern’s decision to poach members from Unite Here didn’t help? I wonder if some of labor’s putative friends (including the POTUS) would have pushed EFCA more aggressively if the labor movement had been more unified.

Good fucking riddance to old horrid trash.

What has the SEIU been able to accomplish with him in charge? Jack and shit.

They got rolled on EFCA, they got rolled on healthcare. Name me a single issue they haven’t been completely and utterly rolled on.

Then they have the gall to protest people who are opposing the bill from the left.

Stern turned the SEIU into a rotting corpratist husk. Good riddance, let it die.

“Decision to wage war against NUHW”? “NUHW” is a memberless organization propped up by UNITE HERE and other funders that was found to have sabotaged the union of the members they claimed to represent. Randy Shaw doesn’t “report,” he’s just a concern troll.

No, no it’s not true. To suggest Obama didn’t push EFCA because he was worried about union infighting is ludicrous. Obama didn’t care about workers enough to push the Senate Dems to do diddly for workers.

Stern did more to revive the labor movement than any leader in recent memory. The split from the AFL-CIO, while ultimately unsuccessful in pulling away more unions from the AFL-CIO, made the AFL rexamine its priorities and start to innovate. Senate Dems, aided by Obama, rolled the unions. But Stern was a good leader and important figure in the labor movement for this generation.

You’re probably right about that. As for NUHW being a memberless organization, history will be the judge. And yes Randy Shaw has a point of view, but IMO nobody else has provided a better analysis to explain SEIU’s tragic U-turn away from organizing.

ding, ding, ding… we have a winner. He was looking out for the bottom line like every other big business.

made the AFL rexamine its priorities and start to innovate

By “start to innovate” do you mean teaching them how to be money obssesed corporatists that are willing to sell out on all core beliefs? Because then I’d agree with you. But other than that I don’t see any innovation from the AFL-CIO

Senate Dems, aided by Obama, rolled the unions. But Stern was a good leader and important figure in the labor movement for this generation

this is a contradictory statement. If the Senate and OBama rolled the unions how was the eladership of the unions good? Isn’t that exactly what the leadership is supposed to be good at, barganing with the senate and president?

“NUHW” is a memberless organization propped up by UNITE HERE and other funders that was found to have sabotaged the union of the members they claimed to represent. Randy Shaw doesn’t “report,” he’s just a concern troll.

That’s your argument about this now? First you brought up the theft in an earlier thread…when the SEIU couldn’t even bring that to court that got dropped. SEIU may have won over all, but NUHW is more organized and energized than the SEIU has been in years.

It’s like you’re completely oblivious to all that’s wrong with modern unions. You just blindly parrot the leadership because ..well I assume because you think you’re supposed to but I don’t actually know.

But this is the same thing that’s wrong with Obamabots. You’re worshipping the leader despite the leader having no clothes.

But this is the same thing that’s wrong with Obamabots. You’re worshipping the leader despite the leader having no clothes.

If you don’t think Andy Stern did any good for the labor movement, that’s fine. He helped bring the labor movement to the 21st century and organized more workers than any recent leader in such a short amount of time.

I completely disagree – and fought against – what they did in health care. that doesn’t mean he’s “old horrid trash”

He helped bring the labor movement to the 21st century and organized more workers than any recent leader in such a short amount of time.

You keep saying that. How did he do that? For the past few years they haven’r organized anyone, they’ve been doing nothing but infighting and sniping at other unions. That’s not 21st century.

The only thing you can honestly say is that in the beginning, and only the beginnign of his leadership he added a lot of membership.

I completely disagree – and fought against – what they did in health care. that doesn’t mean he’s “old horrid trash”

No that alone would not make him old horrid trash.

That ontop of all the rest of the bullshit over the past few years makes him old horrid trash.

I can’t wait for Andy Stern’s next fight, you know he will be on the side of working people and against the oligarchs. It should be very entertaining and, if history is any guide, effective and worth fighting.

go Andy!

I agree with you Michael. I’m hoping we can acknowledge that he was a tremendously important leader and still have a healthy debate about his legacies. It’s unfair to judge him just by his last two years. But at the same time, I think the damage he did in his last two years will be hobbling the labor movement (and especially SEIU) for decades. And this debate is important to have because his successor – whomever it turns out to be – has an opportunity to lead SEIU back onto the right side of history.

x2

I’m not saying he wasn’t important. Trashing a union is important.

I’m saying he hasn’t done a single good thing, and the SEIU is better off without him.

How do you know that?

A man who corpratized the SEIU and you think he’s gonna go to some populist place now?

I very much doubt that.

As a former union member and union steward I was asked to push my members to support Obama and the dems primarily bcz of EFCA. We union members already had health coverage so although healthcare reform was important it was not our number one mission. We certainly never thought that the plan the dems were going to pass was one that taxed our benefits.Stern nor any other union leaders have been willing to force Obama’s hand on this and therefore, EFCA like many other Obama promises will be like a fart in the wind. Had the unions stood up to Obama on the healthcare bill we wld have gotten a much better bill than we ended up with.And If I remember correctly Stern was the first leader of a union to side with Obama on healthcare. Unfortunately, the union leadership did what it does and caved on healthcare and trust me they will cave on EFCA also.

What will it take to make the unions get a real leader again?

Or are they just to stuck in being corporate entities in it for the money?

Doing a job ON their union members instead of a job FOR their union members..

Obama went from change to changeling re : EFCA.

You keep popping off about how crappy today’s labor leaders are. What is your idea of a good labor — either from other countries with similar labor structures or from American labor history?

What will it take to make the unions get a real leader again?

Or are they just to stuck in being corporate entities in it for the money?

An amendment to all the union organization constitutions prohibiting their headquarters or any significant staff from being located in D.C. or NYC would be a good start. One way to get out of the veal pen is to get out of the physical confines of the veal pen.

MR. Whitney,

You are partially correct about stern – he is dynamic. But you are wrong about a bit more. As someone actually in the labor movement – and a defender of Mr. Stern, at times – I have to disagree with some of your characterizations of Andy Stern.

1) Brought SEIU into the 21st Century.
This is one of those cute sloganeering efforts, kind of like the vacuous, PR generated “Change to Win,” which sounds like the best efforts of a human resources department. While it is undoubtedly true that SEIU has done more to advance to the new medium of the internet and reach out to liberal “activist” groups, it has done so with the fiscal concern of a drunken sailor. It has handed out money to “new media,” PR shops and coalition partners with no restraint. While some see this go for broke strategy as akin to headier days in labor, it is not. This is not organizing or militancy, but simply spending workers paychecks with minimal gain for them.

2)NUHW

Don’t play coy. Everyone knows what happened to create NUHW. Stern’s scorched earth tactics against UHW, including the arbitrary use of trusteeship, squelched out any semblance of union democracy. To suggest that NUHW is “a memberless” organization without acknowledgment of what happened to create the situation is disingenuous. The lawsuit was entirely a punitive measure to bankrupt and teach Roselli and his kin to stop making any noise.

3) Organizing
Yes, they organized more members but often merely for the purpose of numbers or density. Outside a few novel forays – Justice for Janitors comes to mind – they generally poached other unions members or jurisdictions (which CTW was supposed to avoid) or grabbed the lowest hanging fruit, producing poor contracts. The result was density with little representation – that is absolutely what labor should not be doing. Members pay for representation, not to be a part of a neutered, quasi movement.

For some time I thought decently of Andy and was a bit taken aback when I was out in the field and heard such vitriol and disgust for the man. I was often the lonely voice in an argument trying to defend the SEIU (I do not work for SEIU or CTW) and more precisely, Mr Stern. As time went on, however, I recognized their disgust and found myself in some agreement. At the time of the split, Stern heralded his decision as an effort at organizing, spending less money on politics, consolidation and ending labor’s incestuous relationship to the democratic party. On all counts, partially excluding consolidation, Stern became the opposite of what he professed. As mentioned, membership gains were not organizational coups but efforts to increase size though the easiest means. The SEIU is more beholden to the Democrats, has spent more money on politics, and is more consumed by politics than any other organization. Not too mention that CTW has completely fallen apart and ceased to exist as an sort of federation. At the end of the day, the bureaucratic SEIU is filled with locals that receive scant attention, poor contracts and little representation.

Stern’s legacy is mixed, but the blogoshphere seems to love him. He looks, dresses and talks in the culture of the 21st century medium. However, his union fails to serve its members appropriately and that is the true metric of success.

Before I depart, let me say your blog is invaluable and despite my disagreements, please continue writing. Almost nobody writes about labor for a newer audience or on the internet. Keep up the work.

Thank you for an informed and dispassionate commentary. I am afraid we are going to see very little of this as the other elements of the Stern resignation play out.

health care was a bigger priority for their workers than EFCA.

How do workers feel about the “deal” they got in the health care bill?

I can tell you Andy Stern was a hated man in UHW circles long before health reform. The drive to break away from SEIU is real.

Well put, Manual. Thanks for your informed take on things and for the absence of vitriol. I agree Stern became the opposite of what he used to espouse. The enduring tragedy of his U-turn is that SEIU has all but thrown in the towel on private sector bottom-up organizing. And I also agree that most of the money SEIU threw at “new media strategies” was ill-spent. It may have made Stern the darling of quasi-leftie bloggers, but it has done doodly squat to facilitate organizing and building power for workers. Bloggers who don’t understand the labor movement are prone to judge Andy as a pundit or a thinker. People who understand the labor movement want to know what has he done to actually organize and build power for workers. They understand the crucial difference between adding members and building power.

And I also agree that most of the money SEIU threw at “new media strategies” was ill-spent. It may have made Stern the darling of quasi-leftie bloggers, but it has done doodly squat to facilitate organizing and building power for workers

You have no evidence to say this. That’s because it’s absolutely, 100% false. If anything, new media is what will keep SEIU engaged in new member growth, member activism, and the modern news cycle for the next decade. If they stuck to everything but new media, as you suggest, they’d be up a creek.

In my time with SEIU, I was in the new media department, and there are innovations and work with members and organizing that you can’t even dream about. So much of it is under the radar and completely unreported. If there’s one thing SEIU is doing right that no one else in the labor movement isn’t, it’s new media.

Thanks for stopping by, Manual, and for giving your commentary. While I disagree with your characterizations on Stern and NUHW, you do make some valid points on what organizing should look like. Thanks again for your comments.