Taking Back America for WorkingPeople: Community by Community

Bruce Colburn

Even in an environment hostile to organized labor, unions and workers can advance through taking backpower on a local and regional level. While the neoliberal economic agenda of the U.S. and key interna-tional organizations do not take into account worker rights, organized labor is winning campaigns on alocal level that in the future will lay the groundwork for a stronger labor movement. In the most unfriendlyregions that are hostile to worker organizing, local labor councils are waging campaigns to advance laborrights by supporting ongoing worker organizing that will engender power down the road. Through mobi-lization of members and nonmembers, organized labor is defeating politicians beholden to big businessesand electing labor-friendly officials on a local and regional level. As workers are displaced by corporaterestructuring and shift production, unions must employ regional models of organizing to reach workers intheir communities and new workplaces.

In 1995 Central Labor Councils (CLCs) and the national American Feder-ation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) launchedUnion Cities as a strategy and framework not simply to change and strengthenlocal labor movements but to rebuild communities. Union Cities was bold inits design and objectives. It aimed to take political and legislative control toworking people and to steer the economy toward good jobs in the key metro-politan areas of this country. These case studies represent vastly differentregions in their union density, demographics, and in the state of their commu-nities and labor movement. Yet, in all four, local labor movements have beenchanged, strengthened, and have won real victories for working people. Thank-fully these cases are not alone. Local leaders in different parts of the countryhave begun the work to produce more stories of success in supporting organiz-ing drives and raising economic standards through local legislation. Thisactivism has begun to put into place new and sustainable forms of labor com-munity alliances that promise to produce innovative and bold agendas for theircommunities. The potential basis for working class power is being laid in agrowing number of metro areas.

Regional power building takes place at a time when huge changes are sweep-ing the nation and the world. Issues of globalization, the devastation of ourindustrial base, the information age, and the domination of our culture and institutions by the right wing have been well documented. Meanwhile, the U.S.

WorkingUSA: The Journal of Labor and Society · 1089-7011 · Volume 8 · December 2004 · pp. 229–231© 2004 Immanuel Ness and Blackwell Publishing Inc.

350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ.

230 WorkingUSA: The Journal of Labor and Society

labor movement—despite some signs of progress—remains remarkablyunchanged. This is also the world in which local labor movements live.

Recently different unions have raised a fundamental debate about the labormovement’s future—one that will certainly sharpen in 2005. Unfortunately,because the discussion has mostly focused on the national movement’s organi-zation, the valuable regional building blocks identified by our cases risk beingoverlooked. Yet, a number of Union Cities Central Labor Councils are deter-mined to get this story into the debate. Our cases and other stories like themsuggest a vision of what a different labor movement would look like in metro-politan areas—one where new workers organize and new social movements arelaunched.

The local leaders in our cases and other metropolitan areas need a debateover labor’s future, which links national change to regional power building. Intruth, in many ways the Union Cities movement has hit a roadblock. The lackof an organizing and growth strategy on the part of many unions has left manyCouncils feeling “they have built movements with new strength but nobody hascome.” Even in the strongest cases, the ranks of unions with power-buildingstrategies to match the ambitions of regional power building remain modest.Yet, a roadblock is not a dead end. The key lessons coming out of these casestudies point toward future changes necessary to build on success.

So what are these lessons? First, a local power-building movement can bebuilt even within difficult national and international conditions. Whetherlooking at progress made, real victories, or future potentials, these local move-ments offer one of the most important vehicles for future progress and realchange. Even in areas with low union density and in conservative-dominatedstates like Texas and Colorado, local leaders have made significant progress.

Second, successful regional movement building works in three key areas. Ithas been able to elect progressives to local political offices and use this politi-cal operation to pass legislation and change public policy. This success in turnprovides a basis for unions to use mobilization and leverage support to helporganizing drives. Indeed, in the long-term power building promises to actu-ally improve the overall environment for organizing in local communities.Finally, as this regional work develops sustainable labor–community alliances,it lays the groundwork for developing agendas capable of rallying whole com-munities and building major social movements. The CLC can play a crucial rolein convening these alliances.

Third, as a number of CLCs have demonstrated an entire region rather thanjust a jurisdiction’s main city provides the natural basis for building real power.Workers no longer live where they work so the regional model allows for botha successful political and workplace strategy. Economic markets and mediamarkets are also organized on a regional basis. Power building uses existing andrevitalized strength in a main city to expand into surrounding areas. As a par-allel example, Upper New York has developed a successful model of develop-ing regional “Area Labor Federations.” Only a nationwide strategy based in thefifty key metropolitan areas of this country can serve as a catalyst to a major andlasting change.

colburn: taking back america for working people 231

Fourth, these case studies clearly show the importance of local labor move-ments opening up to the community and seeing community-based groups asreal partners in building a movement. Such links need to be repeated and builton across the country. CLCs should be open to having community groups affil-iate with the council as full members. Likewise, “minority unions” of workersshould be welcomed into the Central Labor Council or the newly formed AreaLabor Federation.

Fifth, the vast majority of CLCs, even in major metropolitan areas, do nothave enough resources based on per capita dues to build the kind of local labormovement needed. In our cases and other examples, some extremely entrepre-neurial and creative CLC leaders have been able to stitch together extra capac-ity through grants and other means. Yet, as more local labor movements startdown the path to regional power, such funding sources may not prove sustain-able at a nationwide level. Local labor movements, especially in low uniondensity growth areas, need to be guaranteed a certain minimum level of funding.

Finally, each of our examples features a common thread of visionary andresourceful leadership. They are all risk takers operating in a system that toooften punishes rather than rewards risks. This balance of rewards and obstaclesmust change if regional power building is to grow to the scale of dozens of keymetropolitan areas. Small progress in diversity of leadership must be built on.To this end, over the last three years a partnership of the Central Labor CouncilAdvisory Committee (made up of CLC leaders), the national AFL-CIO, andthe George Meany Center has established a program for leadership develop-ment. Like the rest of the regional power-building movement, the program isdriven by peer to peer learning and the actions of CLC leaders themselves.

Combining a guaranteed level of funding with increased leadership devel-opment would help create the space needed to develop more change-orientedleaders. Leadership development, however, can only pay off if there is an activesystem for transforming or replacing local leaders who are not building a suc-cessful program. The current system of trusteeship only for malfeasance doesnot work. For decades the traditional roles and resources of CLCs did not lendthemselves toward attracting into leadership positions activists oriented towardlabor movement transformation. Yet, as our cases demonstrate, CLCs canbecome a vehicle for sparking the kind of history-making progressive movementthat so many within the ranks of labor want to see.

San Jose, Los Angeles, Houston, and Denver provide sample snapshots intime of a movement on the rise. Hopefully, our case studies and researchnetwork will prove part of a growing process to analyze and document this work.Only by telling the stories of regional power building will this work gain greatersupport and recognition as a key component for a changing labor movementand a movement to change this country.

Bruce Colburn is Deputy Director of the Field Mobilization Department,AFL-CIO. Previously Colburn was a leader in the Milwaukee regional labormovement.