LOS ANGELES TIMES INTERVIEW : Richard Trumka : Fighting for Change in America’s Labor Movement

Richard L. Trumka, president of the United Mine Workers of America, is an unusual labor leader. He is a third-generation coal miner but he also has a law degree and Pennsylvania State University degrees in economics and accounting. He is now embroiled as one of the leaders in a dramatic struggle to replace Lane Kirkland, 73, as president of the AFL-CIO. It is the first time since 1894 that a sitting president of the federation of American unions has been challenged for reelection. That was when the first president, Samuel Gompers, lost a bid to stay in office just eight years after the labor federation was formed. Gompers was elected again a year later, serving until his death in 1924.

This time, a coalition of leaders of most of the largest AFL-CIO unions representing a majority of the federation members want Kirkland to retire. So far he has refused, and if he does not, his critics expect to defeat him in an election scheduled in October at the federation’s biannual convention in New York. His opponents are drawing up a slate of candidates to oppose one Kirkland is forming.

Trumka and his allies deny charges by Kirkland supporters that the fight inside the federation destroys labor unity when it is most needed. Unions today represent the smallest percentage of workers--less than 16%--than they have in 40 years; they face a hostile Republican majority in Congress and increasingly harsh attacks by anti-union employers.

The way to improve the fortunes of workers and unions is to revitalize the AFL-CIO, and Kirkland must be replaced to do this, argues Trumka, an articulate speaker with a quick mind and seemingly endless energy. He has not said if he will seek the federation presidency but is usually mentioned in news stories as a possible candidate.

Trumka, 45, has devoted his working life to the union. He began, at age 19, as an inside laborer at a mine near his home in Nemacolin, Penn., doing jobs ranging from shuttle-car operator to roof bolter; he quickly became active in the union. He was intrigued by the union politics made famous by its then-president, John L. Lewis, who founded the Congress of Industrial Organizations, a forerunner of the AFL-CIO. After Lewis’s death, corrupt elements infiltrated the UMW and Trumka became an activist in a reform movement. He figured he needed more education to lead the union, long a goal of his. After law school, he served four years on the union’s legal staff until he was elected president in 1982.

*

Question: Supporters of Lane Kirkland say you and others challenging him are tearing the labor movement apart when it desperately needs unity. Doesn’t this weaken your struggles with employers and their conservative allies in Congress?

Answer: No. The opposite is true. Any unity based on silencing dissenting voices doesn’t strengthen an organization, it weakens it. Democracy is never about people following in lock-step. Sometimes, emotions run high and feelings get hurt, but in the end, democracy is what builds strong countries and unions. A strong labor movement is vital to challenge corporate wage-and-job slashers and stop Newt Gingrich and his followers from helping them bash workers. This debate in the AFL-CIO has never been simply about selecting new officers. We need to re-evaluate the entire structure at all levels, and reinvent it, if necessary,

*

Q: What can a defeat of Lane Kirkland achieve for the labor movement, and what’s so wrong with his actions now?

A: It is time for change in the labor movement--and part of that requires new leadership. I don’t think there is any alternative if we, as a movement, want to be the voice of the American middle class. But to be a part of the debate about what direction this country takes, we must have a spokesperson who can make our case in the national media and other forums. Lane has made it clear he is unwilling to fill that role. He has said he regards appearing on television shows to be demeaning.

At a time when the AFL-CIO’s own research shows that more people actually believe that unions hurt workers more than help them, I don’t think we can afford the luxury of a leader who refuses to take our message to America. While a change at the top won’t achieve all the changes we need, it will provide a fresh opportunity for us to regain the attention of the public, to stop corporate brutality, stop the firing of our activists, stop the hiring of scabs, stop strike-breaking and stop job losses, all of which hurt families, ruin lives and shatter dreams.

This isn’t about Lane’s age. This is about whether the labor movement will have the kind of leadership it needs to reclaim its standing as the voice of America’s middle class that unions created in the first place by raising poverty-level wages to give workers a decent standard of living.

*

Q: Do you and your allies have proposals not being tried under Kirkland’s leadership?

A: Yes, in general we must be more aggressive. We have some specific ideas and soon will have more. While the labor movement has done a good job for its members, there’s no question that, over the last three decades, many unions--including my own--became complacent about organizing. That’s beginning to change. Some of the best organizing recently has been geared toward poverty-wage workers--as it was in the days of significant union growth.

Many unions are finally trying to win, as members, women and people of color, who, in many respects, represent the future of this movement. The success of the Service Employees International Union’s Justice for Janitors campaign in Los Angeles is a good example. It has helped thousands of workers get up from the bottom of the economic ladder, and similar campaigns are going on in other cities.

We need more of that, much more. Other new ideas are being tried. For example, several unions have organized “workers’ rights boards” that are panels of community leaders who review complaints from workers and mobilize public opinion against employers who abuse workers’ rights.

But the bottom line is that even the most effective organizing campaign cannot succeed in rebuilding the labor movement unless we strengthen the legal right of workers to organize. Labor law today is as antiquated as it is anti-union. For instance, few Americans realize how widespread employer harassment and intimidation of workers have become when they try to form a union. One out of four private employers breaks the law by firing workers for union activity. Yet, the average penalty facing employers caught in this illegal act is less than $3,000. It is a puny penalty most employers seem glad to pay to keep workers from having a union.

Winning stronger laws that protect worker rights won’t come easy. It will take years, but unless we begin the campaign now, it will never come. Unless we have a labor movement that is willing to kick some political butt, take risks and fight for what workers need, we are not only certain to lose--we would deserve to lose.

*

Q: Some contend a more ambitious, more aggressive labor-legislative program than the AFL-CIO is now pursuing would just reduce chances for reaching more modest but realistic goals and would be counter-productive.

A: Bunk. We have been too timid and, to a great extent, we’re paying for it today.

Look, what attracts people to join any movement is the strength of the ideas it espouses. If we don’t speak out, offer up our vision for America, it’s foolish to think we can attract support for our ideas. Conservative domination of the political dialogue in Washington doesn’t change the basic reality that government must respond to needs shared by families across the country.

Contrary to the Newt Gingriches and Rush Limbaughs, America cannot leave it up to profit-driven market forces to provide quality universal-health care, safe jobs with decent wages, good schools, dignity in the work place and a secure retirement. We must challenge the right-wing myth that the market forces will do these crucial things. That doesn’t mean we will always win. But unless we are out front, articulating our goals loud and clear, I know we are certain to lose.

*

Q: Should unions significantly increase the amount of time and money they spend on organizing new members even if that means less money for political activities?

A: Framing the question as politics versus organizing really poses a false choice. If we had won labor-law reform under Jimmy Carter, and had been able to organize more workers, we would have had the political strength needed to help President Clinton pass health-care reform last year. What defines labor’s effectiveness in the political arena has never been money, but our ability to mobilize our members at the grass roots.

Right now, for instance, a number of unions are mapping out a new campaign to hold members of Congress accountable on a wide range of issues all working people care about, union and non-union--from fair taxes to health care. What ultimately distinguishes us from the special-interest groups is that we speak out for working families on all issues that concern them, not just union issues.

We have been leaning too heavily on our lobbyists in Washington rather than reaching out more to our own members for support on political and legislative issues. The truth is that when one special interest--the American Petroleum Institute--is wealthy enough to hire more lobbyists than the entire American labor movement, the only strategy that makes sense for us is to mobilize at the grass roots. The strength of giant corporations is money; our strength is people.

*

Q: Has President Clinton done all he can to get legislation to reach your social goals as well as to help unions? If not, wouldn’t serious, public criticism of him by labor just increase the chances of getting a President even less sympathetic to unions?

A: There’s no question that we have had some disappointments with his Administration. In some instances, these were as much the result of the AFL-CIO’s failure to effectively convey the concerns of union families, and all workers, as anything else. I do think the Administration has shown some sensitivity toward working families. We’ve seen that in many of the President’s appointments.

But a lot of us have also found that, while the White House understands how the decline of the labor movement undercuts the middle class, they never seem to fully grasp that a stronger labor movement is a precondition for restoring it. And they don’t understand that some Administration ideas, such as job training and earned-income tax credits for the poor, are fine but are no substitute for collective bargaining.

I don’t think it hurts the President when we point that out. In fact, standing up for workers’ rights is not just good policy--it is also good politics.

*

Q. You talk about needing new labor laws, but cannot much of your goal to help unions be achieved through administrative agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board headed by William Gould, who is certainly not anti-union?

A: In another era, that may have been possible. However, the track record of the Reagan-Bush Administrations demonstrated how far our opponents will go to undo administrative law. It’s getting worse with the current anti-worker Congress planning to slash budgets of agencies such as the NLRB and gut others that help protect workers.