Union Organizing - Change to Win Confederation - Essay Example

Change to Win Change to Win Introduction In the 19th century, there was emergence of unions, which played a crucial role in facilitating cooperation and providing a link between the government, the employers and the employees (Warner, 2012). Unions rose to become strong entities but from the 1980s they experienced major political setbacks through the enactment of various bills that saw the unions decline. Unions experienced hostility from the government, as it teamed up with the corporations to curb their growing influence (Stuart et al. 2010). This led to the reevaluation and development of new strategies that would help them recapture their lost glory. Presently, unions in the United States of America have formed coalitions, in an effort to consolidate power and gain influence (Swier, 2013). However, various misunderstandings and other political issues usually arise within the coalitions, therefore, leading to new coalitions. In the recent past, a coalition known as Change to Win was formed by seven American labor unions that were under the American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations in the past (Estreicher, 2006). The purpose of this paper is to discuss Change to Win Confederation, the issues that led to its formation and the advantages associated with the labor union. Brief History In 2005, Change to Win Federation was formed by seven labor unions that had split from the American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations due to disagreements. Conflicts and internal splits are common within organized labor as was the case in American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations (Waters and Van, 2013). Some labor unions had noted decline in the federation’s performance and influence, following the lack of innovative and well-organized strategies, and sluggishness. These included The Carpenters, Service Employees International Union, Teamsters Union, The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, The Laborers, United Farm Workers, The United Food and Commercial Workers Union, had wanted (SEIU Monitor, 2013). Considering the fact that many unions were experiencing a historically low membership, five unions decided to form a partnership that would assist in pushing for reforms in the American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations (Scipes, 2012). The partnership was informal and aimed at campaigning for a well-coordinated organizational structure that would help increase membership and offer the unions more bargaining power. In 2005, the partnership was dissolved and two unions joined the first five unions to form Change to Win. This confederation aimed at restoring vitality and creating strong organizational structures within the unions (Tattersall, 2010). Why the coalition ‘Change to Win’ emerged? As outlined in the preceding paragraph, Change to Win was formed because of disagreements within the former confederation (Treece, 2008). Leadership issues were among the main factors that led to the disputes. The former head of Change to Win, Andrew Stern, seemed to be locked in a power struggle with John Sweeney, the leader of The American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations (Minchin, 2013). Sweeney may have been Stern’s mentor in the past when they worked in the Service Employees International Union. However, Stern may have realized that Sweeney had taken a laid-back position on the nature of the confederation, thus leading to the plummeting membership experienced within the labor unions. Although the federation is not involved in collective bargaining or in the organization of workers, it is usually the face and the voice of labor unions. It is involved in regulatory and legislative programs that may be pushed for by some of the main labor unions within the confederation (Wright, 2011). This may have led to the formation of Change to Win, an organization that may have helped Stern to push legislative and regulatory initiatives, a process that he was unable to finalize while his union was under The American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations. This indicates that Change to Win Confederation may have been formed to allow some leaders to take a greater step towards introducing positive change for their labor union (Devinatz, 2010). Other experts tend to think that Change to Win was formed due to personal ambitions held by its leader Andrew Stern. Stern may have had a rebellious attitude towards the American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations, therefore, devising a way to grab some power for himself through the formation of the Change to Win federation (Estreicher, 2006). This could be true because Stern’s labor Union, Service Employees International Union, has held the ultimate positions in the confederation. The fact that Stern’s labor union seems to experiencing more growth than the others could also indicate that the confederation aims at satisfying certain interests. This has led to the fragmentation of the new confederation, as the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, UNITE HERE, Laborers International Union of North America and United Food and Commercial Workers leave the recent umbrella body and rejoin the American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations (Scipes, 2012). The third reason why Change to Win emerged could be due to the utilization of money. The union leaders that participated in the establishment of the confederation may have questioned the utilization of the huge amount of money charged by the American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations. The umbrella union had increased its monthly per capita dues from sixty-one cents to sixty-five cents per member for the services rendered (Roof, 2011). However, the confederation was unable to develop a well-coordinated organizational structure or various political campaigns, therefore, influencing some union leaders to question most of decisions made (Turner and Cornfield, 2007). Change to Win promised to charge its members twenty-five cents, therefore, generating more than sixteen million dollars every year. However, this coalition had promised to pledge seventy-five percent of the per capita income to organizing the unions’ members, therefore, proving to provide better coordination services (Estreicher, 2006). Advantages of Change to Win Coalition Organizing Change to Win focuses on organizing, which was one of the reasons that the member unions left the American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations. Change to Win Federation charges each member a fee of twenty-five cents every month to help in raising union funds. Seventy-five percent of this money is committed to organizing (Estreicher, 2006). Organizing helps the coalition to build positive relationships among the member unions and to help them focus on their goals. One of the key goals of organizing is to influence workers to join the labor unions that are represented by the coalition (Dyke and McCammon, 2010). After the establishment of Change to Win Coalition, the member unions had an increase in members, as the coalition played a significant role in organizing. In the recent, some labor unions such as UNITE HERE left the coalition, as they seemed to have a declining membership while others like Service Employees International Union have had an increasing membership. This indicates that the coalition is advantageous to some labor unions as it organizes to help them increase membership (Tattersall, 2011). Organizing also helps in uniting the labor unions. Change to Win Federation has provided support for its unions’ goals by enabling the labor unions to create subjects and campaigns together, which help in meeting their goals while they are building each other (Minchin, 2013). Change to Win Federation helps its members to assist each other by sharing resources, power and skills, making mutual decisions, endeavoring to achieve mutual interests and mutually exchanging commercial and other privileges (Frege, Heery and Turner, 2010). Although the last five years have seen some of the labor unions depart from Change to Win, the coalition utilizes organizing to help unite the labor unions. This is done through restructuring the organizational structure to enable the unions operate cohesively and effectively. However, with many unions in a coalition, some unions tend to feel disgruntled thus leading to disagreements (Early, 2013). Change of Unity has shown cohesiveness as the remaining union labors work together to achieve their goals. The coalition has been able to organize, therefore, fostering representation and increasing their labor market power (Dyke and McCammon, 2010). Providing Physical and Financial Resources As compared to other coalitions, Change to Win Federation works to provide the labor unions with physical and financial resources. Through the charges that are levied on the members, Change to Win can make savings and in case of any event, a member labor union can ask for financial support (Early, 2013). The coalition is also able to source funds from external financiers and assist the union with the money. Change to Win Federation has been involved in many campaigns such as wage equality. These campaigns are funded by the coalition and it helps to provide the labor unions with all the material that they need (Mayer, 2009). This is an advantage to the unions, as they do not incur extra costs, since the coalition takes care of it. Change to Win also provides other physical resources such as, networks of activists and even premises. Access to new groups One of the main aims of unions is to increase membership. Coalitions can help the unions to increase membership through different ways (Tattersall, 2008). Change to Win Federation helps its unions to increase membership by creating exposure and identifying with its unions. Once a union is affiliated with the Change to Win Coalition, the workers are able to understand its values and details. They are able to choose a union that matches with their needs, therefore, adding membership to the unions belonging to Change to Win Federation (Early, 2013). Training and Expertise In the last three decades, union coalitions have developed strategies to help them rejuvenate unions and increase membership. Offering trainings and education is one of the few things that has shown a beacon of hope in their effort to rejuvenate the unions. Change to Win Federation offers trainings to its unions’ members to ensure that they are competent in their fields and efficient (SIEU Monitor, 2013). The coalition has a team of experts who specialize in different fields. The coalition is willing to provide the labor unions with these experts, who will readily impart knowledge into their workers. Change to Win Federation has created many training programs and ensures that a significant amount of funds is directed to training and education (Reynolds, 2011). Change to Unity offers other advantages to the unions. Firstly, the coalition is able to influence certain government decisions, therefore, ensuring that the laws passed do not oppress its unions (Macdonald, 2013). Secondly, coalitions offer legitimacy to their unions. Unions that are associated with Change to Win Federation are considered legitimate, therefore, acquiring a positive image due to the values that the coalition stands for. Thirdly, Change to Win has broadened the unions’ visions, since they share the same values and ideas. This makes the unions to concentrate on significant issues (Fletcher and Gapasin, 2008). Fourthly, Change to Win Federation has enabled its unions to share resources, therefore, making them stronger and more powerful. The unions are able to access funds, build strong organizational structures and initiate better campaigns. This is an advantage as it attracts more members to the unions that have formed the Change to Win Confederation (Schiavone, 2008). Summary During the industrial revolution, a trend emerged among the industrial workers when they decided to organize labor unions groups that would help them lobby for better salaries and improved work conditions (Ribarova, 2013). In the last five decades, unions have formed coalitions due to their dwindling influence. Coalitions are meant to rejuvenate the labor unions (McKenzie, 2010: 5). However, splits have occurred within the coalitions, due to various issues such as poor organization, disagreements over of goals and objectives, and leadership wrangles. Change to Win was formed in 2005 from a coalition split. In the United States of America, coalitions such as Change to Win have been important for they help in concentrating unions to increase influence, sharing resources, exploiting political opportunities, increasing interest representation, engaging in activism, and establishing union identity (Cooney, 2012). Change to Win Coalition has a huge membership that exceeds five million members, which also gives the coalition substantial influence. This helps it the coalition in becoming an authoritative entity that has high legislative and regulatory power in its dealings (Gall, 2009). References Barkan, E. R. (2013). Immigrants in American history: Arrival, adaptation, and integration. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. Blyton P., Heery, E., & Turnbull P. (2011) Reassessing the Employment Relationship, Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke. Cooney, R. (2012) Trade unions and workplace training: issues and international perspectives. New York: Routledge. Devinatz, V. G. (2010). ‘John Sweeneys Legacy and the Future of the Afl-Cio.’ WorkingUSA, 13(2), 281-296. Dyke, N., & McCammon, H. J. (2010). Strategic alliances: coalition building and social movements. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Early, S. (2013, October 18). Change to Wins lack of change. Daily news and opinion from the left. Retrieved April 7, 2014, from http://socialistworker.org/2011/10/18/change-to-wins-lack-of-change Estreicher, S. (2006). Disunity within the House of Labor: Change to win or to stay the course? Journal of Research Labor, 27(4), 504-511. Fletcher, B., & Gapasin, F. (2008). Solidarity divided: union crisis, globalization, and a new road to social justice. Berkeley, Calif.: Univ. of California Press. Frege, C., Heery, E., & Turner, L. (2010). The New Solidarity? Trade Union Coalition-Building in Five Countries. Trade Union Coalition-Building, 1(8), 137-155. Gall, G. (2009) Union Revitalization in Advanced Economies: Assessing the Contribution of Union Organizing, Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke. Macdonald, I. T. (2013). Book Review: Continental Crucible: Big Business, Workers and Unions in the Transformation of North America, by Richard Roman and Edur Velasco Arregui. Labor Studies Journal, 38(3), 261-262. Mayer, B. (2009). Blue-green coalitions: fighting for safe workplaces and healthy communities. Ithaca (N.Y.): Cornell university press. Minchin, T. J. (2013). ‘Labor is back?’ The AFL-CIO during the presidency of John J. Sweeney, 1995–2009. Labor History, 54(4), 393-420. McKenzie, R. (2010). Why Would Contingent Workers Join a Trade Union? Leeds: Leeds University Business School. Reynolds, D. B. (2011). Power in Coalition: Strategies for Strong Unions and Social Change - By Amanda Tattersall. WorkingUSA, 14(1), 120-122. Ribarova, E. (2013). ‘The social power of trade unions in the new market economies: why is it in decline?’ SEER, 7(1), 295-302. Roof, T. (2011). American labor, Congress, and the welfare state, 1935-2010. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Schiavone, M. (2008). Unions in crisis? The future of organized labor in America. Westport, CT: Praeger. Scipes, K. (2012). Globalization from Below: Labor Activists Challenging the AFL-CIO Foreign Policy Program. Critical Sociology, 38(2), 303-323 SIEU Monitor. (2013, February 3). Change to Win: A Union of One « SEIU Monitor SEIU Monitor. SEIU Monitor. Retrieved April 6, 2014, from http://seiumonitor.com/share-your-story/change-to-win-a-union-of-one/ Stuart M., Cook H., Cutter J. & Winterton J. (2010). Evaluation of the union learning fund and unionlearn: Preliminary findings. Unionlearn: London Swier, R. (2013, August 19). The decline and fall of Americas unions. Get Involved! Watchdog Wire Florida. Retrieved April 6, 2014, from http://watchdogwire.com/florida/2013/08/19/the-decline-and-fall-of-americas-labor-unions/ Tattersall, A. (2008). Coalitions and community unionism: Using the term community to explore effective union-community collaboration. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(4), 415-432. Tattersall, A. (2010) Power in Coalition: Strategies for Strong Unions and Social Change. ILR Press: Cornell University. Tattersall, A. (2011). The power of union-community coalitions. Renewal: journal of social democracy, 19(1), 75-82. Treece, B. (2008). Coalition of County Unions and Your Benefits. Chatsworth: International Benefit Consulting Group. Turner, L., & Cornfield, D. B. (2007). Labor in the new urban battlegrounds: local solidarity in a global economy. Ithaca: ILR Press/Cornell University Press. Warner, M. (2012). ‘Trade unions in China: the challenge of labor unrest,’ Asia Pacific Business Review, 18(1).133-134. Waters, R. A., & Van Goethem, G. (Eds.). (2013). American labor’s global ambassadors: the international history of the AFL-CIO during the cold war. New York, NY, USA: Palgrave Macmillan Wright, C. (2011). What role for trade unions in future workplace relations? ACAS Future Workplace Relations Discussion Paper, ACAS: London. Read More