Left out at an AFSCME convention
BEGINNING ON October 16, the state convention of AFSCME Council 31 met for two days in Springfield, Ill., to pass a few resolutions that the Resolutions Committee approved of in advance--as well as to put the kibosh on resolutions the committee found objectionable.
It appears as though it was far more important to the organizers of the convention to make huge blocks of time available to speeches that cheered the Democratic Party, President Obama, past Presidents Clinton and Carter, and the union's past and present victorious efforts. Then, of course, we had lots of time for partying--which would have been cool if we had enough allotted time for voting on all the resolutions (which one would think was the purpose of having a convention).
There were some good moments from the convention, including where the delegates actually overturned a recommendation from the Resolutions Committee to vote to dismiss a more radical resolution calling to "Tax the Rich," while voting for the similar moderated toned down resolution "Tax Fairness and the Illinois State Fiscal Crisis." The delegates voted to pass both resolutions.
Another good moment was when the delegates voted for the resolution "Single Payer Health Insurance" after voting for the moderate resolution "National Health Insurance: the Time is Now."
The resolutions that didn't get consideration before the delegation were a resolution to "Strengthen Nurses' Role to Improve Patient Care"; a resolution on "Protecting Public Health Care Services"; a resolution for "Legislative and Political Involvement"; a resolution "Fostering Fiscal Stability in Cook County"; a resolution for "Fair Trade and Global Labor Rights"; and, perhaps the most controversial to AFSCME's Resolutions Committee, a resolution on "Labor and the Democrats: A Squandered Opportunity to Transform America."
These resolutions were referred to the Resolutions Committee for further consideration. This is a place where such resolutions will die if not rewritten and submitted again.
Ironically, the theme of the convention was "A Strong Union for Tough Times." This probably means more to the well-established union locals of the state prisons and court system, which the union really does an amazing job on their behalf rather than for the members of our local, as well as other forgotten locals.
We were nevertheless moved by the impassioned speeches of Deputy Director Roberta Lynch and Secretary of the International AFSCME union, Bill Lucy. Still, there seems to be a severe disconnect between what was said and what has in fact been done for us--as I suspect is the same for other struggling locals.
Often, locals such as the one I am affiliated with have a hard time getting advisement from union representatives, who are more devoted to the stronger-performing locals. This would appear to be a short-term benefit for the union if it risks the depletion of hard-fought union gains in struggling locals, which would translate to loss of membership.
Nonetheless, I continue to advocate for union membership, even with the disillusionment which is common among struggling union sisters and brothers. Without the protections of unions like AFSCME--even with their bureaucratic disfunctionality--working people would be subject to more dangers of management abuse. Workers would also be without the ties to a larger movement for workers rights.
Socialist workers in unions have a responsibility to continue to radicalize from within the union membership. It is a hard struggle, but one that is needed to help workers fight for more fairness in the workplace and needed reforms as well, as more real democracy in unions.
Craig Althage, Chicago
