The Failure of Organizing, the NewUnity Partnership, and the Future ofthe Labor MovementRichard HurdOrganizing has been at the heart of union strategy discussions for twenty years; it became labor’s top pri-ority with the election of John Sweeney as president of the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Indus-trial Organizations (AFL-CIO) in 1995. However, recent data on membership confirm that union fortunescontinue to decline. In response to the deepening crisis, five major unions formed the New Unity Partner-ship (NUP) in 2003. These unions argue that there is a fundamental weakness in the movement’s struc-ture that must be addressed. They call for consolidation through mergers, and for open debate on the rolefor the AFL-CIO. There is open resistance to the restructuring proposals, and there are practical barriersto implementation. The NUP unions themselves have not been able to achieve increased density on anational scale. In spite of skepticism and resistance, the dramatic nature of the NUP framework at leastbroaches the notion that organizational transformation is required.The New Unity Partnership (NUP) has stirred up a firestorm of contro-versy in union circles. Its inception can be traced to the July 4thholiday in 2003when five national union presidents gathered for a candid private discussionabout the future of the labor movement. The motivation for the summit wasconcern about the collective inability of unions to reverse their fading fortunes.At this meeting and subsequently the unions considered structural and strate-gic options to promote union growth, ultimately committing to a form ofmutual aid pact to pool resources for coordinated organizing initiatives and tosupport each other in critical campaigns. The controversy stems not from thistangible outcome, but from the NUP’s call to dramatically restructure the entiremovement by redefining the AFL-CIO and consolidating unions into fifteen ortwenty sectoral powerhouses (Bernstein, 2003; Wypijewski, 2003).The unlikely alliance includes three of the most progressive unions [SEIU(service employees), UNITE (needle trades and textiles), and HERE (hotel andrestaurant)], plus two comparatively conservative construction unions [LIUNA(laborers) and UBC (carpenters)]. The common ground is a commitment toorganizing. As explained by Andy Stern, president of SEIU, “all of us are rad-icals about growth” (Business Week Online, 2003a). What is most intriguing isWorkingUSA: The Journal of Labor and Society · 1089-7011 · Volume 8 · September 2004 · pp. 5–25© 2004 Immanuel Ness and Blackwell Publishing Inc.350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ.6WorkingUSA: The Journal of Labor and Societythe presence of the UBC, the renegade union that seceded from the AFL-CIOin 2001 in a squabble over dues and organizing (and subsequently developedclose ties to the antiunion Bush administration). It seems that the idea for theJuly summit actually grew out of efforts by some of these same union presidentsto convince the UBC chief, Doug McCarron, to return to the AFL-CIO.McCarron’s views on the necessity of focusing single-mindedly on recruitment,along with his opinion that AFL-CIO dues needlessly drain resources betterdevoted to growth, were apparently persuasive.The NUP is seen by some as a threat to the AFL-CIO, and more widely asan indictment of its president, John Sweeney. It has been criticized as a pre-sumptuous attempt by a self-appointed group of union leaders to map the futurefor everyone else. This opinion was advanced for example by USWA (steel-workers) president Leo Gerard in an interview during the March 2004 AFL-CIO Executive Council meetings: “These are five guys sitting around andtalking. They don’t represent the labor movement” (Franklin, 2004a). A morecharitable interpretation was offered by Paul Booth, assistant to the presidentof AFSCME (state, county, and municipal), who both credits and cautions thoseinvolved for their “powerful impatience” (Meyerson, 2003).At this juncture, the long-term impact of the NUP is uncertain. What isclear is that the parties intend to do more than talk. The five unions have alreadyjoined together for a massive demonstration (and other actions) in support ofHERE contract negotiations with Yale University in the fall of 2003 (Cummins,2004). They intend to continue to look for opportunities to conduct coordi-nated campaigns, and hope “to chart a new organizing course that might inspireothers” (Moberg, 2004). The most dramatic outgrowth of the NUP is themerger of UNITE and HERE. As explained by UNITE president BruceRaynor: “There are 76 unions. There need to be fewer, more formidable unions.And how do you lead except by example? If we can do this and it goes well,hopefully that puts the idea in the minds of other labor leaders” (Meyerson,2003).The UNITE-HERE merger brings together two unions with aggressiveorganizing programs that target similar workers, most of them immigrants orAfrican Americans. Aside from the promise of creating a more powerful union,the merger also frees HERE president John Wilhelm for an anticipated cam-paign to succeed Sweeney at the AFL-CIO when his term expires in 2005(Greenhouse, 2004a).Whatever the fate of Wilhelm’s unannounced (and unconfirmed) candidacy,the very creation of the NUP is momentous because five unions closely associ-ated with organizing have signaled their disaffection with the current AFL-CIO.Sweeney was elected president of the federation in 1995 on a platform thatemphasized organizing, and this has continued as the clear priority throughouthis tenure. What happened to the Sweeney revolution? What has blockedprogress? Does the NUP offer a viable alternative route to union revitalization?Will the NUP change the course of the labor movement or become a minorhistorical footnote?hurd: the failure of organizing 7In order to place the current situation into perspective, it is important tostep back and trace the recent evolution of labor strategy, with particular atten-tion to the organizing priority and the efforts by the Sweeney administration topromote growth. That will set the stage for a look at the most recent data onmembership, which indeed confirm that union fortunes have continued todecline. Then it will be possible to review the type of restructuring proposedby the NUP in more detail and to weigh its potential vis-a-vis alternative coursesof action.Emergence of