[Excerpt] Bill Fletcher and Rick Hurd have shined a critical light on a vital issue facing the labor movement. They have asked, but not yet answered, how the AFL-ClO\u27s  Organizing for Change, Changing to Organize  program will help us build vibrant and democratic unions committed to inclusion and ready to grapple with the tough issues of race and gender. If their essay provides an excuse for some unions to avoid the challenge of organizing while debating these issues, it would be most unfortunate. But if their piece provokes a more serious and candid dialogue about external organizing and internal transformation, Fletcher and Hurd will have once again made an important contribution to revitalizing the labor movement

Grabelsky, Jeffrey

English

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Articles and Chapters ILR Collection 
2007 
Letter to the Editor, New Labor Forum 
Jeffrey Grabelsky 
Cornell University, jmg30@cornell.edu 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles 
 Part of the Collective Bargaining Commons, and the Unions Commons 
Thank you for downloading an article from DigitalCommons@ILR. 
Support this valuable resource today! 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the ILR Collection at DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been 
accepted for inclusion in Articles and Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@ILR. For more 
information, please contact catherwood-dig@cornell.edu. 
If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an 
alternate format, contact web-accessibility@cornell.edu for assistance. 
Letter to the Editor, New Labor Forum 
Abstract 
[Excerpt] Bill Fletcher and Rick Hurd have shined a critical light on a vital issue facing the labor movement. 
They have asked, but not yet answered, how the AFL-ClO's "Organizing for Change, Changing to Organize" 
program will help us build vibrant and democratic unions committed to inclusion and ready to grapple 
with the tough issues of race and gender. If their essay provides an excuse for some unions to avoid the 
challenge of organizing while debating these issues, it would be most unfortunate. But if their piece 
provokes a more serious and candid dialogue about external organizing and internal transformation, 
Fletcher and Hurd will have once again made an important contribution to revitalizing the labor 
movement. 
Keywords 
labor movement, labor organizing, AFL-CIO, labor unions 
Disciplines 
Collective Bargaining | Unions 
Comments 
Suggested Citation 
Grabelsky, J. (2000, Fall/Winter). Letter to the editor. New Labor Forum, pp. 102-104. 
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/213/ 
Required Publisher Statement 
New Labor Forum is published by The Murphy Institute/City University of New York. Used with permission 
of the publisher. 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/213 
0 > To t h e E d i t o r : 
Whenever Bill Fletcher and Rick Hurd 
team up to critically examine vital issues 
facing the labor movement,they sharpen 
much-needed debate about union renew-
al."ls Organizing Enough?" [NewLabor 
Forum issue #6) is no exception.They are 
right to argue that the AFL-CIO's focus on 
quantitative growth risks belittling the 
challenge of qualitative change, especially 
in relation to issues of race, gender, and 
inclusion. It is also true that external 
organizing does not necessarily lead to 
internal transformation. But the value of 
their contribution would be enhanced by 
greater attention to the dialectical rela-
tionship between quantitative and quali-
tative change, as well as between external 
organizing and internal transformation. 
First, it is more important for labor 
activists to ask,"ls there enough organiz-
ing?"than,"ls organizing enough?"With 
ail the talk about growth,the labor 
movement has begun to master the 
rhetoric, but not yet the reality, of mass 
organizing, which is the only way to 
restore labor's power and beat back cap-
ital's unrelenting assault on the working 
class. Union organizing has not even 
approached the scale needed to defini-
tively reverse the long-term trend of 
declining density. Numbers do matter. 
For example, in the building trades, we 
have increased membership by nearly 
300,000 since 1996 through organizing 
and recruitment and have raised union 
density in three of the last four years. But 
we have had only a modest impact on 
density, nudging it up from 18 percent 
to just over 19 percent.To increase con-
struction union density to 25 percent by 
200—let alone the 40 percent we 
enjoyed in the 1970s or the 80 percent 
of the 1950s—the building trades would 
have to organize a half million new 
members, more than we added to our 
ranks in the last four (best) years of 
growth in recent memory. Quantitative 
change can become qualitative change 
only when unions organize millions, not 
just thousands, of new members. 
Second, internal transformation can-
not take place in a vacuum. In many sec-
tors of the American economy, union 
density is so low and union power is so 
marginal that negotiating decent con-
tracts, servicing our current base, and 
transforming union culture are virtually 
impossible.The labor movement cannot 
reinvent union culture without restoring 
union power through organizing.That 
probably won't happen outside the con-
text of a broader social movement with 
a coherent and compelling vision of 
societal transformation,The AFL-CIO's 
efforts to engage environmentalists, 
human rights activists, community lead-
ers, students, and other progressive 
social forces are essential steps toward 
building that kind of movement. What is 
needed is 
of change a< 
realize that vi 
Third," 
Changing to 
nal tra 
and a 
organizing. 
meaningful 
ing wi thout 
internal 
the case in th 
most 
movement 
mistakenly 
progressive 
unions gra 
again do 80 
and until we 
the workers 
pie of color), 
decades of 
Through a 
called COME 
Membership 
have rea 
and-file me 
understand 
both the rig 
way to rebui 
overcome t 
manyseg. 
Of course 
ing agenda 
a discussion 
inclusion. (8 
women em 
nonunion 
currently 
of gender 
1 0 2 - N e w Labor Forum Fail/Winter 2000 
have raised union 
e last four years. But 
lodest impact on 
»from 18 percent 
t.To increase con-
:y to 25 percent by 
percent we 
>r the 80 percent 
[ding trades would 
f mill ion new 
\/e added to our 
>est) years of 
ory. Quantitative 
jalitative change 
mize millions, not 
members. 
insformation can-
ium. ln many sec-
onomy, union 
l ion power is so 
i g decent con-
'ent base, and 
ure are virtually 
ovement cannot 
/itho-ut restoring 
'ganizing.That 
outside the con-
novement wi th 
ng vision of 
Tie AFL-CIO's 
imentalists, 
>mmunity iead-
rogressive 
steps toward 
'ementWhat i s 
needed is greater clarity about our vision 
of change and a growing movement to 
realize that vision. 
Third,"Organizing for Change, 
Changing to Organize!" means that inter-
nal transformation is both a precondition 
and a potential consequence of external 
organizing. Few local unions experience 
meaningful success in external organiz-
ing without engaging in some degree of 
internal change.That has certainly been 
the case in the building trades, one of the 
most conservative sectors of the labor 
movement and one that many critics 
mistakenly believed was impervious to 
progressive change. Once building trades 
unions grasped that we would never 
again do 80 percent of the work unless 
and until we represented 80 percent of 
the workers (so many of whom are peo-
ple of color), we were forced to confront 
decades of exclusionary practices. 
Through a remarkably effective program 
called COMET—Construction Organizing 
Membership Education Training— we 
have reached more than 200,000 rank-
and-file members and helped them 
understand why embracing inclusion is 
both the right thing to do and the only 
way to rebuild union strength. Have we 
overcome the racism that has infected 
many segments of the building trades? 
Of course not. But advancing an organiz-
ing agenda enabled us to at least initiate 
a discussion about race, ethnicity, and 
inclusion. (Because there are so few 
women employed in construction's 
nonunion sector, organizing does not 
currently force us to deal with the issue 
of gender exclusion.) 
A genuine commitment to construc-
tion organizing has not only raised basic 
questions of inclusion but also, in some 
cases sparked a fundamental reevaluation 
of union structure and staffing. For exam-
ple, the carpenters union has undergone 
a dramatic restructuring to create large 
regional councils that more closely con-
form to the actual structure of the con-
struction industry.This internal change 
enables the union to more effectively 
organize regional and national contrac-
tors operating in the regional and nation-
al markets that now characterize our 
industry. Whatever advocates of union 
democracy may say about this internal 
transformation, the union has consciously 
recruited an increasingly diverse staff 
committed to organizing workers regard-
less of race, gender, or immigrant status. 
While Fletcher and Hurd are certain-
ly right to argue that external organizing 
does not necessarily produce internal 
transformation, it is hard to imagine a 
local union that has managed meaning-
ful internal change without also (and 
perhaps first) confronting the challenge 
of external organizing. Moreover, the 
skills and spirit that sustain effective 
external organizing are precisely those 
needed to generate the kind of internal 
union culture that Fletcher and Hurd cel-
ebrate. It is not a coincidence that one of 
the labor movement's most successful 
external organizing unions,SEIU, recently 
ran an enormously effective internal 
mobilization in Los Angeles, Chicago, 
New York City, and elsewhere to negoti-
ate new contracts for its Building 
Services Division. Would that have been 
Mi/Winter 2080 New tabor Forum • 1 0 3 
m& 
.12: 
etters 
possible without the Justice for Janitors 
organizing campaigns that preceded 
these contract fights? 
Fourth,given Fletcher and Kurd's 
focus on quantitative versus qualitative 
change in the labor movement, their 
research is ironically weakened by a ten-
sion between quantitative and qualitative 
methods.They examine too few cases— 
only about thirty local unions—to offer us 
a rigorous quantitative analysis. As a result, 
their construct of "three paths" followed 
by locals ostensibly committed to organiz-
ing seems somewhat contrived.They do 
not dig deep enough in any single case to 
produce a rich and nuanced picture of 
how external organizing and internal 
transformation play out in the real world; 
that is precisely the kind of picture quali-
tative research can render. As a result,their 
evidence is often reduced to anecdotes 
and occasional platitudes that add little to 
the discussion of race, gender, and inclu-
sion. For example, any local leader—from 
the most progressive to the most reac-
tionary—might say,"The member is the 
e > To T h e Ed i t o r : 
I want to thank Fletcher and Hurd 
{New Labor Forum Issue #6 "Is Organizing 
Enough?") for their continued work on 
the subject of local union transformation. 
I believe that if the union movement is 
going to carry out its historical mission of 
being an engine of democracy, local 
most important aspect of what we do. We 
are there for them, not them for us" (p. 65). 
How is that common rhetoric reflected in 
the reality of internal union life? 
Bill Fletcher and Rick Hurd have 
shined a critical light on a vital issue 
facing the labor movement.They have 
asked, but not yet answered, how the 
AFL-ClO's "Organizing for Change, 
Changing to Organize" program will help 
us build vibrant and democratic unions 
committed to inclusion and ready to 
grapple wi th the tough issues of race 
and gender. If their essay provides an 
excuse for some unions to avoid the 
challenge of organizing while debating 
these issues, it would be most unfortu-
nate. But if their piece provokes a more 
serious and candid dialogue about 
external organizing and internal trans-
formation, Fletcher and Hurd will have 
once again made an important contribu-
tion to revitalizing the labor movement. 
—Jeff Grabelsky 
Organizing Director, AFL-CIO Building 
and Construction Trades Department 
union transformation is essential. Not 
only are 70 percent of the union move-
ment's resources tied up in local unions, 
but also it is at the local union level that 
workers and communities regularly inter-
act with the union movement. I believe 
that a particular strength of Fletcher and 
Hurd's work is the recognition that the 
shift from business i 
movement unionisr 
cultural shift in the 1 
ment—one involvir 
structural changes f 
"Organizing for 
best long-term potc 
ing unions into age 
movements and co 
union's potential fo 
unorganized. 1 also. 
and Hurd's assertioi 
focusing on memb< 
increase the possib 
dynamic membersr 
energy outside of ti 
parameters. Howev 
research to support 
izing for inclusion, i 
union density. 
i am also highi> 
solely on staff and I 
vehicles such as "str 
ponent,""leadershif 
"support from the r 
union transformatic 
to underestimate tr 
and-file struggles tr 
enlightened action: 
Often, internal local 
rooted in ideologic; 
the purpose of loca 
104 -New Labor Forum Fail/Winter 2000 


Letter to the Editor, \u3ci\u3eNew Labor Forum\u3c/i\u3e

https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1214&amp;context=articles

Letter to the Editor, \u3ci\u3eNew Labor Forum\u3c/i\u3e

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@ILR