The Effectiveness and Limits of Labor Community Coalitions

8/3/2019 The Effectiveness and Limits of Labor Community Coalitions

1/24


2/24

LABOR STUDIES JOURNAL: SPRING 200468

major issues of concern to virtually all of those interested in organized

labor (including skeptics of the social-movement unionism model) also

are intimately connected to the question of labor-community coalitions.A major task for organized labor in this country is to change the cultural

climate so that union rights become a cause to which large percentages ofthe population are dedicated. As the AFL-CIO notes, labor rights must

be made into human rights. If the cultural climate could be changed deci-sively in this way, the size of the labor movement could grow enormously

in short order because union-busting employer behavior would not betolerated. As Nelson Lichtenstein notes (2002), violation of union rights

must be made just as shameful and unacceptable as denial of rights due toracism. If this cultural change is to occur, it is hard to see how it could

happen in the absence of extensive labor-community coalitions through-out the country.

Therefore labor-community coalitions are a topic of great concern.

What are the potentials and the limitations of labor-community coali-tions for U.S. unions? The remainder of this paper will first review the

literature on this topic and then examine recent union experiences withthis approach in south Florida to provide tentative answers to this ques-

tion. (Because of the emphasis on local communities, union coalitionsacross national boundaries will not be considered in this paper, important

though that topic is.)

Literature On The Topic

A classic of the literature on this topic is Building Bridges: TheEmerging Grassroots Coalition of Labor and Community, edited by JeremyBrecher and Tim Costello (1990). This book contains short case studies

of coalitions concerning labor struggles, jobs and economic developmentstruggles, electoral coalitions, and issue campaigns, as well as interpretiveessays. While the range of coalitions and examples is wide, the cases are

by now dated, and the chapters are only intermittently scholarly researchmany are closer to journalism. Despite limitations, this book has been

one of the best resources on labor-community coalitions. A similar jour-nalistic article by Acuff (1993) calls for mass action, with coalitions at

the center, as a way forward.Much of the earliest work on labor-community coalitions centered

on struggles to prevent plant closures. Haines and Klein (1982) detail

labor-community coalition efforts against deindustrialization in


3/24

69LABOR-COMMUNITY COALITIONS

Youngstown, Ohio. Issue #19 ofLabor Research Review (1992) analyzeslabor and community efforts to save manufacturing. Hathaway (1993)

analyzes plant-closing struggles in the Pittsburgh area in the 1980s. Craypoand Nissen (1993) contains numerous case studies about attempts to forge

union-community alliances in (usually futile) efforts to save jobs in timesof deindustrialization. Nissen (1995) details and analyzes northwest Indiana

labor-community efforts to confront and reverse plant closings, a few ofthem surprisingly successful. Swinney (1999) describes a labor-community

alliance to save jobs in Chicagos candy industry.Some analyze labor-community coalition efforts in union contract

campaigns. Green (1990) analyzes the unsuccessful struggle of UFCWLocal P-9 and allies to resist concessions at the Hormel Company.

Kingsolver (1989) and Rosenblum (1995) analyze the 1983 Phelps-Dodgestrike in Arizona, where a labor-community effort was ultimately unsuc-

cessful. Sciacchitano (1998) details a successful first-contract campaign

involving extensive community participation. Juravich andBronfenbrenner (1999) relate the victorious struggle by the United Steel-

workers and community allies against the Ravenswood Aluminum Cor-poration. Bronfenbrenner and Juravich (2001) explore increasingly suc-

cessful coordinated campaigns by the United Steelworkers involving com-munity alliances from 1983 through 2000. Franklin (2001) covers the

(mostly losing) major struggles in Decatur, Illinois, pitting union-com-munity forces against three employers determined to wrest concessions

from their workers.Other literatures look at the utility of labor-community coalitions

in organizing the unorganized. Banks (1991-1992) analyzes the SEIUs

Justice for Janitors (JfJ) experience, and the growth of Jobs with Justice

(JwJ), arguing for community unionism in organizing efforts. Greer (1996)shows how community-labor alliances aided multiple union-organizingdrives in South Carolina. Needleman (1998) analyzes California garment-

worker and health-care organizing experiences to draw out the potentialsand pitfalls of coalitions between unions and low-wage communities. A

portion of Janice Fines excellent article (2000-2001) on community union-ism in Baltimore and Stamford concerns the decisive advantage commu-

nity alliances gave to hospital-worker organizing in Stamford, Connecti-cut.

Some literature concerns coalitions built around broader commu-nity concerns that may not be thought of directly as union issues. One


4/24


successes in northwest Indiana, where pioneering legislation was won in

Gary, Indiana, by a labor-community coalition. Peterson (2001-2002)

gives a detailed analysis of similar efforts in Minnesota.In a similar vein, there is a somewhat lengthy literature on living-

wage campaigns, perhaps the most successful sustained labor-communitycoalition movement in the U.S. today. Reynolds (1999) provides a broad

survey of earlier living-wage efforts. Nissen (2000) uses a south Floridaexample to evaluate the potential of living-wage efforts to build genuine

social movements. Nissen (2001) makes a broader assessment of living-wage movements from a social-movement analytical perspective. A por-

tion of Fines essay (2001-2002) analyzes the Baltimore alliance that kickedoff the modern living-wage movement. Luce (2001-2002) analyzes the

role of organized labor in living-wage campaigns. Reynolds and Kern(2001-2002) analyze similar issues. Reynolds (2002, 145-172) provides

an overview of living-wage issues, as do Levi, Olson, and Steinman (2002-

2003).Others focus on the role of central-labor councils (CLCs) in provid-

ing coalitions between organized labor and communities. Dean (1996)details Working Partnerships USA, a pioneering and innovative effort by

a California CLC. Sneiderman (1996) shows how the national AFL-CIObegan efforts to revitalize CLCs as community-based institutions in the

mid-1990s. Gapasin and Wial (1998) make alliances with communityforces a central criterion for determining which CLCs are transforma-

tive ones capable of playing a major role in organizing. Acuff (1999)shows the potential power of CLCs with an example from Atlanta, where

alliances were made with community forces, especially minority commu-

nities. McLewin (1999) analyzes community fragmentation and labor

efforts to build CLCs in the modern era. Kriesky (2001) gives a scholarlyanalysis of the structural and functional changes being attempted in re-cent efforts to rebuild CLCs embedded in communities.

A few articles explore the potential of labor-religious coalitions.Bole (1998) traces the reawakening of a religion-labor alliance that had

fallen into abeyance. Peters and Merrill (1998) show the important roleplayed by people of faith in organizing drives at Chicagos OHare airport

and a local hospital. Russo and Corbin (1999) look at potential for coa-litions between labor and the Catholic Church.

Alliances between organized labor and environmentalists have alsoreceived some coverage. Leonard and Nauth (1990) detail a successful


5/24


relates southern environmental-labor alliances in organizing drives.

Kellman (1994) analyzes union involvement in environmental protec-

tion in a strike situation in Jay, Maine. And New Solutions journal wasfounded to find methods of uniting, rather than dividing, labor and envi-

ronmentalists.Numerous articles and books look at relations and possible coali-

tions between organized labor and minorities and immigrants. The entireliterature is too broad to include here, but Labor Research Review 20 (1993),Kelly (1999) and Blackwell and Rose (1999) give a flavor of some of therecent issues and debates.

Since the Battle in Seattle in 1999, some literatures have analyzeda possibly emerging coalition between organized labor and the new global

justice movement. Three reflections on the Seattle event are Fraser andLichtenstein (2000), Acuff (2000), and Crosby (2000). Neumann (2002)

is a thoughtful reflection on the difficulties facing this fragile, emerging

coalition.The many contributions to our understanding listed above operate

from a variety of theoretical perspectives. Some are analytically deep whileothers are much shallower. In many cases, the analytical framework refers

to the specific type of coalition that is being examined, thus limiting itsgeneralizability to a wide variety of coalitions and circumstances. In this

article, I will not attempt to synthesize the many implicit and explicittheoretical frameworks used in the literature cited above. Instead, I will

try to achieve a more modest objective: to address the claims of an articlethat argues that most labor-community coalitions are not possible given

the nature of the U.S. labor movement. I will also utilize definitions and

concepts from two additional contributions to provide a framework within

which to analyze coalition experiences in south Florida.Heckscher and Palmer (1993, 297-299) argue that present-day unions

in the U.S. are not able to form mutually beneficial coalitions with other

types of community organizations. Heckscher and Palmer argue that unionsare capable of functioning in only two ways: They can act as established

insider institutions, narrowly focused on collective bargaining and bi-lateral power relations with employers (the familiar business-union

model). Or they can act in accordance with another variation on thebusiness-union model, as dominant partners in coalitions with a narrow

focus on labor support rather than on broad civil rights or social justiceissues. But, the authors contend, unions are incapable of acting as equal


6/24


Palmer assert that unions are capable only of forming vanguard coali-

tions, not common-cause ones.

Heckscher and Palmer do not give a clear theoretical indication ofwhy they believe common-cause coalitions around broader goals are im-

possible. But they use empirical evidence to argue that their belief iscorrect. This article will re-examine this belief, using evidence from south

Florida as to whether broader, more meaningful, coalitions are possible.Fred Roses book Coalitions across the Class Divide: Lessons from the

Labor, Peace, and Environmental Movements (2000) focuses on cultural dif-ferences between working-class organizations like unions and middle-class

institutions like peace and environmental groups. Rose analyzes class-cultural characteristics to explain difficulties in coalitional efforts between

working-class organizations (unions) and middle-class single-issue orga-nizations (e.g., environmental, peace groups). He argues that bridge build-

ers who operate in both kinds of organizations are needed if cultural

differences are to be surmounted and coalitions are to be real. Theconcept of bridge builder will be used in this articles analysis of south

Florida experiences.Frege, Heery, and Turner (2003, 2) define labor-community coali-

tions and give a taxonomy of their types. The authors define labor-com-munity coalitions as follows:

Union coalitions involve discrete, intermittent or continuous joint

activity in pursuit of shared or common goals between trade unions

and other non-labor institutions in civil society, including com-munity, faith, identity, advocacy, welfare and campaigning organi-

zations.

This definition excludes union-union coalitions, or coalitions with gov-ernment structures, politicians, or political parties. But it broadly covers

all other kinds of community coalitions into which unions may enter, andit covers the types of coalitions addressed in this article. It is the opera-

tive definition for the remainder of this article.

Frege, Heery and Turner also catalogue four types of coalitions. Van-guard coalitions occur when the labor movement requires coalition part-

ners to simply support labor-defined and labor-led activities. Coalitionpartners treat organized labor as the vanguard and simply follow its lead.

Common-cause coalitions exist when two or more organizations with sepa-rate but associated interests coalesce around goals that will help achieve


7/24


coalition in advance. Integrative coalitions occur when unions offer un-

conditional support to coalition partners, thus adopting the goals of coa-

lition partners as entirely their own. This is a useful categorization. Thecoalitions and coalition structures in contention in the cases analyzed in

the next section are confined to vanguard or common-cause coalitions,terms that will be used in the analysis.

The Frege, Heery, and Turner paper also catalogues five types ofresources coalitions may bring to unions: (1) financial and physical re-

sources, (2) communications, (3) expertise, (4) legitimacy, and (5) mobi-lization of popular support. This taxonomy can also clarify the usefulness

(or lack of it) of a particular coalition.The following section details experiences of the south Florida labor

movement in its attempts to form coalitions with community groups.These experiences will be analyzed using Frege, Heery, and Turners defi-

nitions and taxonomy, Roses concept of the bridge builder, and Heckscher

and Palmers pessimistic argument about the possibilities of such coali-tions really being achieved. Finally, this article will draw conclusions

about the possibilities and limitations of the coalitional approach.

The South Florida Case

The labor movement in south Florida engaged in few coalition ef-

forts with community forces in the mid-1990s. The Jobs with Justice(JwJ) movement was born in the Miami Arena in 1987 at a rally of 11,000

supporting the Eastern Airlines workers, but by the mid-1990s there wasno JwJ chapter in the area. Virtually all other forms of labor-community

coalition were also extinct. This may have been due to the massive defeat

of the machinists union and its community allies in the Eastern Airlines

struggle (out of which the national JwJ grew), when Frank Lorenzo strippedthe company of its assets and ultimately put it out of business. Sometimesmassive labor defeats dampen further efforts for years. This may have

happened in Miami.Whatever the reason, by the middle of the decade, the labor move-

ment was mostly disconnected from community activism. The centrallabor council considered itself connected to the community through its

community-services liaison at the United Way, but this connection wasentirely focused on charity rather than social activism. When I moved to

Miami in 1997, not a single labor-community coalition was visible.1 In

that year this changed when the central labor council joined with a local


8/24


in Miami-Dade County. The Community Coalition for a Living Wage

(CCLW) was born.

From the beginning, this labor-community collaboration exhibitedboth positive and problematic features. The positive features were con-

tinued collaboration that eventually resulted in passage of a county liv-ing-wage ordinance in 1999, a Miami Beach living-wage ordinance in

2001, and ongoing efforts in several other south Florida towns. The prob-lems were many. Aside from a couple of building-trades leaders who inter-

mittently attended CCLW meetings, organized labors official presence incoalition meetings was almost entirely through one individual, the secre-

tary-treasurer of the central labor council. This individual made no effortto actively involve other leaders of local unions. He made a few perfunc-

tory reports to central labor council meetings on the CCLWs progress,but the entire effort was totally top-down. 2

This individual was totally committed to the cause of winning a

living-wage ordinance, but he exhibited a number of problematic atti-tudes. First, since he was originally from an airline Transport Workers

Union local, he appeared to care almost exclusively about coverage ofairport baggage handlers (union and nonunion). At one point he argued

that if they werent covered the ordinance would be worse than nothingsince virtually all county contractors were nonunion, and winning wage

increases for their nonunion workers would be a step backward. A coali-tion, he argued, was you scratch my back; Ill scratch yours; if union

members werent directly winning pay increases, organized labor had nostake. He refused to concede that a broader, integrative goal like raising

the floor for all workers (and thus lessening the impetus for the county

to privatize AFSCME-represented county jobs), was desirable. Here we

have behavior that gives some support to the Heckscher-Palmer thesis:the labor leader narrowly focused on union-institutional goals, and de-manded that the overall coalition become simply a vanguard one, where

other partners simply supported labor-defined goals.Aside from the personal orientation of the individual involved, the

broader labor movements involvement in the living-wage movement isrevealing. Virtually all unions sympathized with the living-wage effort,

but until the final week before passage, none of them played an active rolein the CCLW. They considered the individual participation of the cen-

tral labor councils secretary-treasurer to be sufficient. Some union lead-ers saw the issue as one of helping unfortunate fellow employees, not a


9/24


This could again be considered further evidence to support the Heckscher-

Palmer thesis.

It is important to emphasize that the labor movement did providemost of the bodies in the mass mobilization of approximately five hun-

dred attending the county council meeting where the ordinance was passed.The primary resources provided by non-labor partners in the CCLW were

communications, expertise, and legitimacy, not bodies for mobilization.In the end organized labor came through with the mass mobilization.

While the understanding of some (but not all) labor leaders was limited(somewhat closer to charity than solidarity), it remains true that the

south Florida labor movements coalitional efforts grew in understandingand practice in this initial living-wage campaign. The overall effort could

not be considered entirely a vanguard coalition; persistent efforts by non-labor partners in the CCLW kept pulling the coalition toward a common-

cause coalition.

The next coalitional effort revealed a split within the ranks of orga-nized labor. In 1998, an individual with long experience in community

organizing in the area began to create a local chapter of the InterfaithCommittee for Worker Justice (IFCWJ). Once the committee was estab-

lished, conflict erupted. Some of the more activist local unions, includ-ing SEIU and UNITE affiliates, began bringing organizing and contract

battle requests for assistance to this committee. The central labor coun-cil secretary-treasurer, at the insistence of the councils president, de-

manded that locals not be allowed to bring requests to the IFCWJ. Heargued that all requests could be channeled only through the central labor

council to IFCWJ, not directly from a union local. If the IFCWJ ac-

cepted and acted upon requests for assistance from a union local, he threat-

ened that the central labor council would refuse all cooperation withIFCWJ, and treat it as an unfriendly organization. He further demandedthat an African-American pastor who had taken a position favoring school

vouchers be removed from IFCWJ leadership, since the local teachersunion opposed vouchers.

Those demands reveal the mentality that Hecksher and Palmer claimis inevitable in the U.S. labor movement. First, the central labor councils

leadership wanted the council to control all coalitions between unionsand community forces at that time (which has since changed). Efforts

outside of this unitary official channel were to be suppressed. Second,community allies (religious allies in this case) were not to be allowed to


10/24


In other words, the coalition had to be of the vanguard variety. Third,

individuals involved in coalition efforts were not to be allowed to oppose

positions taken by the central labor councils largest affiliate, the teachersunion. Intimidated, the fledgling IFCW voted to deal exclusively with

the central labor council, and never to take a position different than thattaken by the AFL-CIO.

This vanguard coalition failed to grow beyond the initial group ofabout a half dozen pro-labor clergy and laity who had originally set up the

group. As a captive labor support group, it was unable to develop its owninternal life or to move beyond the most dedicated initial founders. Sub-

sequently, the president and the secretary-treasurer of the central laborcouncil moved to different positions. That enabled the IFCWJ to become

more independent, with its own part-time staffing, independent deci-sion-making leadership body, and ability to create its own program of

action. It is now free to relate to whatever unions come to it for assis-

tance. Given this greater freedom and ability to develop ownership ofthe organization from people in the faith community, the organization

has grown enormously, and has become one of the most important andactive IFCWJs in the U.S.

A final coalitional effort revealed even greater splits within the la-bor movement itself. In late 1999, community and union activists de-

cided to re-create a Jobs with Justice (JwJ) chapter in south Florida be-cause they were unhappy with the lack of activism in the central labor

council and the weak mobilizational capacity (and narrow focus) of theCCLW. The union component of the newly formed JwJ chapter was com-

posed of the most activist unions in the area, primarily local affiliates of

SEIU, UNITE, and AFSCME. (A TWU local and a CWA local also

supplied leaders for the new JwJ chapter.) The pre-changeover centrallabor council leadership was highly suspicious of the JwJ chapter from thebeginning, because it felt that some of the union locals putting the most

energy into JwJ were not active or energetic enough participants in thecentral labor council.

The tensions broke into open warfare when the central labor coun-cil secretary-treasurer disrupted a JwJ meeting by getting into a shouting

match with an AFSCME local president, accusing him of lowering hislabor-council affiliation numbers at the same time he was supporting JwJ.

The secretary-treasurer shouted that the central labor council would treatJwJ as an enemy because it was a dual-union phenomenon. The council


11/24


ist accusations to the national AFL-CIO were persistent. Eventually the

AFL-CIO national office called both the central labor council president

and the co-chair of the local JwJ chapter (who is the leader of an SEIUlocal) to Washington, D.C., for a meeting with AFL-CIO Vice President

Linda Chavez-Thompson. Much to the surprise of the central labor councilleader, Chavez-Thompson defended the right of JwJ to exist, and instructed

the local central labor council to cooperate with it. Because of the post-1995 leadership of the AFL-CIO, bureaucratic sanction was given to the

activists in the labor movement, not to those attempting to suppresslocal activism.

As noted before, leadership in the central labor council has sincechanged. (Even before the leadership changeover, the local JwJ chapter

was beginning to flourish and the IFCWJ organization was moving to-ward greater independence, so I am not arguing that meaningful broader

[non-vanguard] coalitions were impossible unless the changeover occurred.

However, it became much easier once official opposition ended.) Boththe new president and the new secretary-treasurer of the council now

support the existence of the JwJ chapter, and the council actively publi-cizes JwJ activities. On the broader issue of coalitions in general, the new

leadership is also much more expansive, supporting any coalitions thatare pro-labor. A few within the labor council are still uneasy about whether

JwJ is attempting to encroach on council turf, or perhaps creating amultiple organization that is unnecessary. But on the whole, the official

labor bodys attitude toward coalitions and its understanding of their na-ture is much more positive. And the new labor council leadership clearly

and explicitly understands that the most effective coalitions are of the

common-cause variety, not front-group labor support committees (van-

guard coalitions) with virtually no mass base.This new attitude directly contradicts what Heckscher and Palmer

claim is possible. Of course, it may be a temporary aberration that will

soon be eclipsed when organized labor returns to its essential nature (thisis probably what Heckscher and Palmer would claim). But present mo-

mentum in the region is in the opposite direction: toward more equalpartnerships in multilateral coalitions, i.e., common-cause coalitions.

Most of the in-the-streets activism of the labor movement in southFlorida is channeled through the JwJ chapter, not the central labor coun-

cil. As long as there are positive relations between the council and the JwJ chapter, this division of labor is probably for the best, because the


12/24


confrontational activism. Given this, the labor council would have a hard

time carrying out by itself the activist program pursued by JwJ. An alli-

ance between the two organizations allows the labor council to lend sup-port to left-progressive activism, without having to carry out the work

entirely on its own.Of the approximately eighty union locals in south Florida, approxi-

mately 10 percent participate actively in JwJ, with maybe another 20percent occasionally relating to the organization and its activities. The

JwJ chapter is currently recruiting organizational members aggressively.It has more than doubled the number of organizations officially joining as

members and occasionally taking part in activities. This is an impressivenumber of labor organizationsfar beyond anything that would have been

conceivable in the pastbut it also indicates that many unions are notoriented toward activist coalitions. This is of course not surprising, given

that the post-World-War-II U.S. labor movement almost never engaged

in such coalitions prior to the 1980s.Reasons for the indifference of most unions are not hard to find.

First, in most unions (but not all) the demand for coalitions is not com-ing spontaneously from the rank and file. Most members, familiar with

the traditional role played by U.S. unions in the immediate past, seldomthink of unions as coalition partners in activist formations (Nissen 2003).

Thus they look to the union only for contract negotiations and servicing.Given this, the likelihood that a union will proactively enter into

coalitions usually is highly dependent on the attitudes of the leaders to-ward coalitions. And when south Florida union leaders do enter into

coalitions, their ability to get members actively involved depends heavily

on the composition of the membership. The south Florida unions most

easily able to mobilize members for coalition efforts have at least one oftwo characteristics. They are overwhelmingly composed of people of colorand low-wage workers; or their members work in one of the service or

helping industries (nursing homes, blue-collar school employees), or both.Other JwJ member unions, such as the Ironworkers local in the area and

the authors union of university professors have induced small-scale par-ticipation in JwJ events, but the membership has not easily embraced

coalition work as natural.Whatever the degree of mass participation, the most critical vari-

able determining whether a south Florida union will participate in thelocal coalition opportunities available is the presence (or absence) of union


13/24


position within the union. Such people are what Rose (2000, 167-180)

calls bridge builders who bring labor together with other progressive

organizations. Virtually every instance of strong union involvement inthe local JwJ chapter exhibits such a bridge builder (or builders) from the

union. South Florida union leaders and activists who are bridge buildersoften have a background of involvement with some other social move-

ment or campus-based movement. This is not universally true, but it is ina majority of cases.

The other characteristic of most but not all South-Florida bridgebuilders is that they have a broadly progressive left political ideology

that views the world in terms of class struggle. Leaders with this perspec-tive see organized labor as part of a larger social movement for social and

economic justice, so coalitions seem to be natural. This does not meanthat all bridge builders in the area have identical political or ideological

views (far from it), but they do share a broad left-progressive outlook on

the role of workers and unions in the United States. In south Florida, themost prominent bridge builder is Monica Russo, leader of SEIU 1199-

Florida. Other bridge-builder union leaders and staffers have played amajor role in building a JwJ chapter and other labor-community coali-

tions. Among these are Sherman Henry of AFSCME Local 1184, DaveGornewicz of Ironworkers Local 272, John Ratliff of SEIU Local 1991, J.

W. Johnson and Dorothy Townsend of TWU Local 291, Maria Revelles ofUNITE, Esly Caldwell of HERE 355, Marcia Gonzalez of the Carpenters,

and others.When labor leaders focus solely on members or on economic gain

for members, those leaders are less likely to engage in coalitional activi-

ties. And when narrowly focused leaders undertake coalitional activities,

they are likely to view coalition partners from an opportunistic perspec-tive only, seeing coalitions as merely a tactical device for immediate gain.From this perspective, a coalition can be only a labor support group. In

the language of Frege, Heery, and Turner, they confine themselves to van-guard coalitions whose sole purpose is for coalition partners to uncondi-

tionally support a union. Coalitions never progress to the common-causestage, much less a bargained-agreement or an integrative state. Conse-

quently, coalitions tend to be small, intermittent, and short-lived. Morefrequently, no coalition efforts are attempted at all.

Among labor leaders with wider vision, there is still tension overhow far afield coalition efforts can go. All unions, including those led by


14/24


in numbers and influence. When considering where to put time and

resources, leaders must consider direct institutional gains: obtaining first

contracts, better union contracts, union recognition in organizing battles,or political objectives. This pull toward narrowly institutional goals is

undoubtedly the basis of Hecksher and Palmers pessimism about thepossibility of broader coalition-building efforts. Even the most progressive

leader must concentrate on those coalitions most likely to bring aboutunion victories in the near term.

The ability of south Florida labor-community coalitions to deliversuch gains varies from circumstance to circumstance. For example, the

Community Coalition for a Living Wage (CCLW) hoped that its livingwage victories would result in some union-organizing victories. Yet, only

one organizing victory at the airport (for a Teamsters local) resulted frompassage of the Miami-Dade ordinance. It is not clear whether this is the

fault of unions for not aggressively attempting to organize workers of county

contractors winning living-wage increases, or whether it is because theliving-wage movement was not enough to convince these workers to over-

come their fear and organize.Other examples of little apparent gain include the struggle by UNITE

to organize workers at a Goya-foods facility. Despite support from coali-tion allies, the union has been stymied by employer intransigence. A

group of workers organized by the Ironworkers has never obtained a firstcontract, despite active support from JwJ and the Interfaith Committee

for Worker Justice (IFCWJ). The Carpenters organized a lumberyard buteventually lost the unit in a decertification election four years later due to

unfair labor practices and employer intransigence despite rallies and in-

terventions by the IFCWJ and JwJ. In other words, coalitions do not

consistently deliver sufficient clout to turn the tide for unions facingobstinate employers.

On the other hand, nursing-home workers at Mt. Sinai/St. Francis

nursing home won an SEIU 1199-Florida union contract after several JwJand IFCWJ support activities, including a hearing into the nursing-homes

behavior, the widely publicized Workers Rights Board, featuring actorDanny Glover. And at a Point-Blank bullet-proof vest plant, workers

organized by UNITE clearly have been aided (in material help and en-hanced morale) in their ongoing struggle by the south Florida JwJ chap-

ter.It is important to ask how often, and how visibly, labor-community


15/24


committed leadership are likely to be pulled into coalition efforts. In

south Florida, the record is mixed. The combination of living-wage

movements, an active JwJ chapter, and an active IFCWJ is resulting inenough victories to bring ever more attention and respect to the coalition

idea, but progress has been only partial.Two points are crucial. First, local coalitions have had to struggle to

obtain sufficient resources to be adequately staffed and developed. TheCommunity Coalition for a Living Wage (CCLW) has had to operate

with either no staffing or intermittent part-time staffing of ten hours aweek after a local foundation grant was obtained. The local JwJ chapter

has been more fortunate; thanks to support from the national JwJ andnational foundations, it has operated with one to two staff in the past few

years. The Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice (IFCWJ) started withno staffing but evolved into a part-time staff position for a very talented

individual able to offer full-time work for part-time wages. These low

levels of staffing have been enough to keep the organizations functional,but much more could be done with more support. Especially the JwJ chap-

ter and the IFCWJ are striving hard to become more self-sufficient withlocal support from member organizations.

Second, the real power of labor-community coalitions lies not onlyin delivering immediate victories for labor, but also in achieving broader,

and longer term, goals. Properly built labor-community coalitions buildcredibility for organized labor among potential allies. This can be critical

for long-term political power, community support over time, and the like.For example, in October 2002, the south Florida JwJ organized and co-

sponsored an Early Vote Rally and March. This coalition effort united

unions, gay and lesbian organizations, Haitian activists, civil-rights or-

ganizations and leaders, rappers, students, and others. The chapter alsoworked hard on a Florida constitutional amendment to mandate smallerclass sizes in the public schools. It also supported a Peoples Transporta-

tion Plan to raise the taxes necessary for better public transportation inthe county. All of these were successful, and organized labor gained cred-

ibility with a number of organizers and community leaders with whom ithad limited contact before.

Long-term goals, such as changing the climate of the country sothat union-organizing rights are seen as basic human rights, are equally

relevant with short-term gains when appraising the importance of labor-community coalitions to unions in this country. But it is difficult for


16/24


struggling for their very survival in a hostile environment. Thus, com-

mitment to labor-community coalitions in south Florida is only partial,

even among some of the most progressive unions. Despite this qualifica-tion, the idea is gaining more and more adherents, thanks to what has

been accomplished through coalitions.To a large degree, it seems that the future of labor-community coali-

tions in south Florida depends on the prospects for social-movement ac-tivism on a broader scale. This too has been improving in the Miami area.

An active and energetic Miami Workers Center has been started in theheart of the African-American community. At a local university, several

activists have set up a Power University that trains neighborhood activ-ists in leadership. A well-established affiliate of the church-based DART

community organizing network exists, and it has been establishing tieswith the living-wage movement and the JwJ chapter. Thanks to the

success of the living-wage movement, the community-organizing group

ACORN has established a local chapter in south Florida. These recentdevelopments have occurred within the past five years. If such social

movement activism continues to grow, it will increase the potential powerof community allies, making labor-community coalitions more appealing

and likely in the future.

Summary and Conclusions

In south Florida, labor-community coalition efforts have grown enor-

mously in the past six years, although they are still definitely the excep-

tion rather than the rule. In this particular locale, the following factorshave influenced developments:

(1) A widely resonant initial issuea living wagebegan the process of

initial formation of labor-community coalition groups. Success onthis issue inspired the formation of other labor-community coali-

tion groups.

(2) Problematic attitudes from the central labor council leadership madeinitial efforts difficult, but a turnover in council leadership has re-

moved that obstacle. Proprietary attitudes that attempt to monopo-lize all union activity and a vanguardist attitude toward all com-

munity partners (allowing them to make no decisions, but to merely

support unconditionally a union) are very detrimental to effectivedevelopment of a labor-community coalition.


17/24


more than labor-support groups unconditionally supporting deci-

sions made by a particular union. Instead, the most successful have

been common-cause coalitions focused on converging interests.These coalitions have been allowed to develop their own leadership

and decision-making bodies, and have allowed participating organi-zations and individuals to buy in to the mission of the coalition

through active participation in group decisions.

(4) All coalitions have depended heavily on bridge builders who shareboth labor and community viewpoints, and who actively work to

bring labor together with potential non-labor partners. Bridge build-

ers from within organized labor are often labor leaders or staff witha broadly left-leaning, working-class perspective on the world; fre-quently they have had previous experience in other social move-

ments.

(5) Effectiveness of the coalitions depends heavily on their ability tomobilize enough resources to have adequate staffing. All- (or virtu-

ally all-) volunteer organizations never develop beyond a low levelof effectiveness. The quality of the staffing is also critical; fortu-

nately, south Florida labor-community coalitions have had high qual-ity in staffing.

(6) The likelihood that coalition-building will spread to broader sec-

tions of the local labor movement depends a lot on the degree towhich labor-community coalitions are able to demonstrate concrete

results for achieving union goals. So far, the record is mixed, al-though enough results have been achieved to give the idea growing

appeal within south Florida unions.

(7) Coalitions most easily attract large-scale membership participationfrom south Florida unions whose membership is either heavily mi-

nority and/or immigrant, or in the public-service or helping indus-tries. Unions with more skilled and more white memberships draw

more limited mass participation.

(8) Future growth of labor-community coalitions appears to depend ongrowth of social movement activism on a broader scale. In the

Miami area, such activism has been growing, making for cautiousoptimism about future prospects.

These results give somewhat ambiguous evidence regarding Hecksher

d P l l i th t i d l b i th U S t i dd d


18/24


are only labor-support groups. But the results show a fairly large amount

of coalition-building and broader common-cause coalitions of the type

Hecksher and Palmer assert to be beyond the capabilities of U.S. unions.Furthermore, the trend has been toward more such coalitions. Unless

this turns out to be a temporary aberration, Hecksher and Palmers pessi-mism about labor-community coalitions may be overdrawn. The south

Florida evidence calls for cautious optimism.Whether the eight conclusions above can be generalized beyond the

south Florida area is, of course, subject to debate. But my reading of theentire range of literature cited earlier leads me to believe that they are

broadly applicable. When we consult enough case studies for congruencewith those conclusions, we can be relatively confident about them. In

this case, the general factors and influences cited in the conclusions ap-pear to have fairly wide applicability. Scholars and activists can probably

reliably use the conclusions in analyzing the prospects for labor-commu-

nity coalitions in their local communities. As for the larger questionregarding Hecksher and Palmers conclusion about broad or meaningful

labor-community coalitions in general, this article can be seen as one casestudy casting doubt on their pessimism.

Notes

1 This account of the growth of labor-community activism in south Florida

in the years between 1997 and 2003 is based on my participation in, and

observation of, the organizations covered.

2 For a fuller explication of the problems with the CCLW from a social-

movement perspective, see Nissen (2000).

References

Acuff, Stewart. 1993. The right thing, the smart thing: A call for mass action.

Labor Research Review 21 (Fall/Winter): 97-104.

________. 1999. Expanded roles for the central labor council: The view from

Atlanta. In Which direction for organized labor? Essays on organizing, outreach,and internal transformations, edited by Bruce Nissen. Detroit: Wayne StateUniversity Press.

2000 Th b ttl i S ttl d h g f h N Lab


19/24


Banks, Andy. 1991-1992. The power and promise of community unionism.

Labor Research Review 18 (Fall/Winter): 17-31.

Blackwell, Angela Glover, and Kalima Rose. 1999. Overcoming the obstacles:

Forging effective labor-community alliances. New Labor Forum 5 (Fall/Winter):59-67.

Bole, William. 1998. Religion and labor: Reawakening the alliance. WorkingUSA 2 (November/December): 42-49.

Braden, Anne. 1993. Environmental justice = social justice. Labor Research Re-view 20 (Spring/Summer): 63-69.

Brecher, Jeremy, and Tim Costello, eds. 1990. Building bridges: The emerginggrassroots coalition of labor and community . New York: Monthly Review Press.

Bronfenbrenner, Kate, and Tom Juravich. 2001. The evolution of strategic and

coordinated bargaining campaigns in the 1990s: The steelworkers experi-

ence. In Rekindling the movement: Labors quest for relevance in the 21st century,edited by Lowell Turner, Harry C. Katz, and Richard W. Hurd. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press.

Craypo, Charles, and Bruce Nissen, eds. 1993. Grand designs: The impact of corpo-rate strategies on workers, unions, and communities. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press/

Cornell University Press.Crosby, Jeff. 2000. The kids are alright.New Labor Forum 6 (Spring/Summer):

35-39.

Dean, Amy. 1996. Working partnerships USA: The latest initiative for a council

on the cutting edge. Labor Research Review 24 (Summer): 43-48.

Fine, Janice. 2000-2001. Community unionism in Baltimore and Stamford:

Beyond the politics of particularism. Working USA 4 (Winter): 59-85.

Franklin, Stephen. 2001. Three strikes: Labors heartland losses and what they mean

for working Americans. New York: Guilford Press.Fraser, Steve, and Nelson Lichtenstein. 2000. Teamsters and turtles.New Labor

Forum 6 (Spring/Summer): 23-29.

Frege, Carola, Edmund Heery, and Lowell Turner. 2003. Comparative coalition

building and the revitalization of the labor movement. Paper presented to

the Industrial Relations Research Association Conference, Washington,

D.C.

Gapasin, Fernando, and Howard Wial. 1998. The role of central labor councils

in union organizing in the 1990s. In Organizing to win: New research onunion strategies, edited by Kate Bronfenbrenner, Sheldon Friedman, Rich-ard W Hurd Rudolph A Oswald and Ronald L Seeber Ithaca NY: Cornell


20/24


Green, Hardy. 1990. On strike at Hormel: The struggle for a democratic labor move-ment. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Greer, Simon. 1996. Community-labor alliance sparks South Carolina. LaborResearch Review 24 (Summer): 87-91.

Haines, Pamela, and Gary Klein. 1982. Citizens and unions respond. In Commu-nity and capital in conflict: Plant closings and job loss, edited by John C. Raines,Lenora E. Berson, and David McI. Gracie. Philadelphia: Temple University

Press.

Hathaway, Dale. 1993. Can workers have a voice? The politics of deindustrializationin Pittsburgh. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Heckscher, Charles, and David Palmer. 1993. Associational movements and

employment rights: An emerging paradigm? In Research in the Sociology ofOrganizations: Special Issue on Labor Relations and Unions 12, edited by SamuelB. Bacharach, Ronald Seeber, and David Walsh. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Johnston, Paul. 2001. Organize for what? The resurgence of labor as a citizenship

movement. In Rekindling the movement: Labors quest for relevance in the 21st

century, edited by Lowell Turner, Harry C. Katz, and Richard W. Hurd.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

________. 2002. Citizenship movement unionism: For the defense of localcommunities in the Global Age. In Unions in a globalized environment: Chang-ing borders, organizational boundaries, and social roles, edited by Bruce Nissen.Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Juravich, Tom, and Kate Bronfenbrenner. 1999. Ravenswood: The steelworkersvictory and the revival of American labor. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Kellman, Peter. 1994. Jay, Maine, fights for jobs and the environment. LaborResearch Review 22 (Fall/Winter): 21-27.

Kelley, Robin D.G. 1999. Building bridges: The challenge of organized labor incommunities of color.New Labor Forum 5 (Fall/Winter): 42-58.

Kingsolver, Barbara. 1989. Holding the line: Women in the great Arizona mine strikeof 1983. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press/Cornell University Press.

Kriesky, Jill. 2001. Structural change in the AFL-CIO: A regional study of Union

Cities impact. In Rekindling the movement: Labors quest for relevance in the21st century, edited by Lowell Turner, Harry C. Katz, and Richard W. Hurd.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Labor Research Review 19. 1992. (Fall).

Labor Research Review 20. 1993. (Spring/Summer).

L d R h d d Z k N h 1990 B BASF OCAW b


21/24


Levi, Margaret, David J. Olson, and Erich Steinman. 2002-2003. Living-wage

campaigns and laws. Working USA 6 (Winter): 111-132.

Lichtenstein, Nelson. 2002. The state of the union. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Luce, Stephanie. 2001. Building political power and community coalitions:

The role of central labor councils in the living-wage movement. In Centrallabor councils and the revival of American unionism, edited by Immanuel Nessand Stuart Eimer. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

________. 2002. Life support: Coalition building and the living-wage move-

ment.New Labor Forum 10 (Spring/Summer): 81-92.

Lynd, Staughton. 1983. The fight against shutdowns. San Pedro, CA: SinglejackBooks.

McLewin, Philip J. 1999. The concerted voice of labor and the suburbanization

of capital: The fragmentation of the community labor council. In Whichdirection for organized labor? Essays on organizing, outreach, and internal trans-formations, edited by Bruce Nissen. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Moody, Kim. 1988.An injury to all: The decline of American unionism . New York:Verso.

Needleman, Ruth. 1998. Building relationships for the long haul: Unions andcommunity-based groups working together to organize low-wage workers.

In Organizing to win: New research on union strategies, edited by KateBronfenbrenner, Sheldon Friedman, Richard W. Hurd, Rudolph A. Oswald,

and Ronald L. Seeber. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Neumann, Rachel. 2002. Out of step: Labor and the global social justice move-

ment.New Labor Forum 11 (Fall/Winter): 38-47.

New Solutions Journal. All issues.

Nissen, Bruce. 1993. Successful labor-community coalition building. In Granddesigns: The impact of corporate strategies on workers, unions and communities,edited by Charles Craypo and Bruce Nissen. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press/Cornell

University Press.

________. 1995. Fighting for jobs: Case studies of labor-community coalitions con-fronting plant closings . Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

________. 2000. Living-wage campaigns from a social-movement perspec-

tive: The Miami case. Labor Studies Journal 25, no. 3: 29-50.

________. 2001. The social-movement dynamics of living-wage campaigns.Proceedings of the 53rd annual meeting of the Industrial Relations Research

Association New Orleans Louisiana


22/24


________. 2003. Alternative strategic directions for the U.S. labor movement:

Recent scholarship. Labor Studies Journal 28, no. 1:133-155.

Peters, Ron, and Theresa Merrill. 1998. Clergy and religious persons roles in

organizing at OHare Airport and St. Joseph Medical Center. In Organizingto win: New research on union strategies, edited by Kate Bronfenbrenner,Sheldon Friedman, Richard W. Hurd, Rudolph A. Oswald, and Ronald L.

Seeber. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Peterson, Erik. 2001-2002. Coming together: Promises and pitfalls of Minnesotas

corporate-accountability campaigns. Working USA 5 (Winter): 46-80.

Reynolds, David. 1999. The living-wage movement sweeps the nation. Working

USA 3 (September/October): 61-80.

Reynolds, David. B. 2002. Taking the high road: Communities organize for economicchange. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Reynolds, David, and Jen Kern. 2001-2002. Labor and the living-wage move-

ment. Working USA 5 (Winter): 17-45.

Robinson, Ian. 2002. Does neoliberal restructuring promote social-movement

unionism? U.S. developments in comparative perspective. In Unions in aglobalized environment: Changing borders, organizational boundaries, and social

roles, edited by Bruce Nissen. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.Rose, Fred. 2000. Coalitions across the class divide: Lessons from the labor, peace, and

environmental movements. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Rosenblum, Jonathan D. 1995. Copper crucible: How the Arizona miners strike of1983 recast labor-management relations in America. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press/Cornell University Press.

Russo, John, and Brian Corbin. 1999. Work, organized labor and the Catholic

Church: Boundaries and opportunities for community/labor coalitions. In

Which direction for organized labor? Essays on organizing, outreach, and internaltransformations, edited by Bruce Nissen. Detroit: Wayne State UniversityPress.

Sciacchitano, Katherine. 1998. Finding the community in the union and the

union in the community: The first-contract campaign at Steeltech. In Orga-nizing to win: New research on union strategies, edited by Kate Bronfenbrenner,Sheldon Friedman, Richard W. Hurd, Rudolph A. Oswald, and Ronald L.

Seeber. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Sneiderman, Marilyn. 1996. AFL-CIO central labor councils: Organizing for

social justice. Labor Research Review 24 (Summer): 39-42.

Swinney,Dan. 1999. Early warning systems: A progressive economic strategy for


23/24


The transformation of the American labor movement. In Rekindling themovement: Labors quest for relevance in the 21st century, edited by LowellTurner, Harry C. Katz, and Richard W. Hurd. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press.


24/24

The Effectiveness and Limits of Labor Community Coalitions

Documents

Transcript of The Effectiveness and Limits of Labor Community Coalitions