Does the Change to Win Federation Represent U.S. Labor’s Third Moment? Evidence from National Labor Relations Board Certification Elections, 2003–2005
- 118 Downloads
In the conclusion to Labor in the New Urban Battlegrounds, Daniel Cornfield contends that U.S. labor’s third “moment” is exemplified by the establishment of the Change to Win (CTW) Federation in September 2005 in which the federation’s affiliated unions focused on organizing service sector workers into multi-jurisdictional unions. Cornfield defines a “moment” as an era in which labor adopts innovative organizing strategies for representing workers in industries and/or occupations previously unorganized within the economy. Utilizing National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) certification election data from 2003–2005, this article investigates the organizing patterns, based on the jurisdictions and industries of fifteen unions, nine affiliated with the AFL-CIO and six that joined the CTW, to ascertain if the CTW’s creation initiated U.S. labor’s third moment. Analysis of the certification election data indicates that the CTW’s formation does not constitute the inauguration of third moment unionism in the United States.
Key wordsunion organizing NLRB certification elections service sector workers
- Brudney, J. J. (2005). Neutrality agreements and card check recognition: Prospects for changing paradigms. Iowa Law Review, 90, 819–886.Google Scholar
- Cornfield, D. B. (2007). Seeking solidarity . . . why, and with whom? In L. Turner, & D. B. Cornfield, (Eds.), Labor in the new urban battlegrounds: Local solidarity in a global economy (pp. 235-251). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- Devinatz, V. G. (1993). From industrial unionism to general unionism: An historical transformation? Labor Law Journal, 44, 252–256.Google Scholar
- Fletcher, B., Jr., & Gapasin, F. (2008). Solidarity divided: The crisis in organized labor and a new path toward social justice. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Freeman, J. (2006). Symposium: split to win? Dissent, (Winter), 54–56.Google Scholar
- Gely, R., & Chandler, T. D. (2008). Card check recognition: New house rules for union organizing? The Fordham Urban Law Journal, 35, 247–276.Google Scholar
- Greenhouse, S. (2009). Move to return to A.F.L.-C.I.O fold. The New York Times: A12. (March 14).Google Scholar
- Greenhouse, S. (2008). Steelworkers merge with British union. The New York Times. (July 3).Google Scholar
- Greenhouse, S. (2005a). AFL-CIO is urged to oust its leader. The New York Times. (May 17).Google Scholar
- Greenhouse, S. (2005b). (September 28). “Breakaway Unions Start New Federation.” The New York Times, http://ww.nytimes.com/2005/09/28/national/28labor.html. <Accessed on September 29, 2005>.
- Gross, K. J. (2005). Separate to unite: Will change to win strengthen organized labor in America. The Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal, 24, 75–130.Google Scholar
- Hurd, R. W. (2007). U.S. labor 2006: Strategic developments across the divide. Journal of Labor Research, 28, 313–325.Google Scholar
- Kelber, H. (2005). (June 22). Why there is so little support or interest in Stern-Hoffa’s ‘Change to Win Coalition.’ The Labor Educator, http://www.laboreducator.org/litsupport.htm. <Accessed on October 23, 2005>.
- Maher, K. (2009). AFL-CIO, breakaway unions discuss reuniting. Wall Street Journal. (January 9).Google Scholar
- McNeill, J. (2007). Work in progress: The state of the unions two years after the AFL-CIO split. Dissent, (Spring), 71–76.Google Scholar
- Merrill, M. (2006). Symposium: Split to win? Dissent, (Winter): 57–58.Google Scholar