EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Toward a More Perfect Unity
by Ron Kutak
The concept of unity
within a labor organization—and within the labor movement—is
the foundation of unionism; banding together and turning many voices
into one strong voice, individuals become a formidable force in the
unequal power relationship between worker and employer. In this way,
the labor movement was born and continues to evolve around the world.
How is unity, the basis of trade unionism, relevant to us today? What does it mean in practice? In the governance of Local 700, the Board, its officers and its staff have been guided by a couple of key principles.
First, when approaching an issue, unity seldom means unanimity; more often it means consensus: a consensus reached through a good faith debate, research, practical analysis, compromise and, finally, a Board vote. The personalization or politicization of arguments has never created anything within the labor movement but chaos and disharmony. The issues must always be the point and focus of any discussion.
Next, after a Board vote, unity does mean unanimity. Why? Simply because once a vote is taken, the issue is decided, and we as a body move on to the next issue. The Guild speaks with one strong, united voice to the outside world. The importance of this last principle cannot be overstated—particularly as we approach renegotiation of our Basic Agreement in December 2005 with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), the bargaining representative for the major studios, networks and independents in the motion picture and television business. The Basic Agreement sets a national (and in some cases, international) standard by which other agreements are measured.
All the IA locals that work under the Basic Agreement have to balance their individual needs with the needs of other locals—and then reach consensus on the broader and more costly issues that affect all the locals. These issues encompass everything from common working conditions to the funding and benefit issues confronting the Pension and Health Plans. Such consensus is not always easy to achieve, but in the end, it is always necessary.
Lately, disunity has reared its head within the entertainment labor community specifically, and in the labor movement generally, with unfortunate results. As many of you know, the Writers Guild America, west (WGAw) has been faced with a dwindling number of work hours in primetime television, due to the popularity of reality TV. In addition, its recent attempt to bargain an increase in DVD residuals failed. As a result, the WGAw appears to believe that its bargaining position has diminished, and has looked for new ways to strengthen its numbers and moribund presence in primetime. Since it has virtually no organizable groups on any reality show, it has cast its net wide and deemed editors "storytellers."
It is this equivocation that the WGAw used to wage a raid on traditional editorial jurisdiction—thus far without success. More disappointing still, the raiding began after the former leadership of the WGAw reached an agreement of cooperation with the MPEG, then reneged on it without discussion or explanation. The administration of the WGAw then chose affirmatively to misinform its membership regarding its conduct and motives.
Such actions on the part of a purported ally in the labor movement are dispiriting. The Guild's response to the WGAw has been very successful (as can be learned in more detail in Tris Carpenter's columns in this magazine); we have organized True Entertainment in New York, America's Next Top Model, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition and several of Mark Burnett's shows (Rock Star: INXS, The Apprentice and The Apprentice: Martha Stewart). The WGAw's failure to honor its word, its politicizing of issues that could be addressed collaboratively, and its raiding exemplify the destructive behaviors that historically have divided—and ultimately have weakened—the labor movement to the benefit of management.
We've also seen disunity in labor on a national level, with several international unions leaving the AFL-CIO. Rather than letting their ideas rise or fall on the merits, these unions, led by the SEIU, chose to politicize disagreements to the point of threatening to leave the AFL-CIO if they did not get their way. After not receiving the concessions they demanded, they simply quit. Labor's voice on a national level, already weak and out of balance with the powers aligned against it, has suffered both economically and politically as a result of this rather public dispute. Quitting is not a constructive response when labor (not to mention laborers) needs all of the support it can get. No one should be surprised to learn that labor's opposition cheered this development, and no one looking at this development with an objective eye has seen it as beneficial for labor. Individual agendas trumped the basic concept of union unity and we will all in some way be the worse off for it as long as the split remains.
Politics has long been famous for the ability to destroy solidarity by dividing people based on ideological differences that become personalized. The strength and necessity of politics comes from its central position in the art of compromise and consensus-building. The world cannot exist without politics, but those who engage in its practice must always place the issues above all else. Many times, where an institution ultimately finds itself is as much a result of the means it uses to make decisions as the decisions it ultimately makes.
Finally, a union is a democratic organization, with ongoing policy decisions made by executive boards of democratically elected officers and representatives. There will always be disagreement, debate, continued evaluation and re-evaluation. But above all else, one of the worst enemies of union achievement (other than lousy labor laws and recalcitrant employers) is contained within unions themselves and must be fought vigilantly at every turn in order for unions to succeed.