SEIU President Expected to Announce his Retirement

Posted on April 14, 2010 by Ilyse Schuman

Andy Stern

Update:  This entry has been updated to reflect Stern's official retirement announcement.

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) President Andy Stern announced his retirement on April 14. Stern, who has served in this capacity since 1996, has been a controversial labor figure, having led the departure of several major unions from the AFL-CIO to form the labor affiliate Change to Win in 2005. Stern also was instrumental in the breakup of UNITE HERE, which had been created by the merger of HERE, representing workers in the hotel and food service industries, and UNITE, which organized workers in the textile and apparel industries. The resulting split left some members to form the competing Workers United union, which subsequently affiliated with the SEIU. The remaining members of UNITE HERE, which included mostly former HERE members, rejoined the AFL-CIO.

Stern has led the SEIU to be the fastest-growing labor union in the United States. Although it is uncertain who will permanently replace Stern, a recent New York Times article speculates that SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger will take the helm. Burger is also Chair of Change to Win, and will serve as interim president until the SEIU's International Executive Board votes on a successor within the next 30 days.  Other possible candidates include Mary Kay Henry, SEIU’s Executive Vice President.

Photo credit:  SEIU

Tags: ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Trackbacks
  • Share Link

Union Leader Admits EFCA Defeat?

Posted on April 21, 2009 by Jay Sumner

In the weeks since a litany of Senators recently spoke out against the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), organized labor has nonetheless complained that it deserves an up-or-down vote on whether to take away employees’ right to vote in secret on unionization. With little hope that these Senators will change their position, Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), has now acknowledged that the prospects for EFCA’s passage look grim, indicating the first large fissure in organized labor’s efforts to pass EFCA. In an interview with The Washington Post, admitting a strategic error on the part of EFCA supporters, Stern intimated that the version of EFCA introduced in the Senate – which contains, among other things, the infamous “card check” and mandatory arbitration provisions – was introduced in this form to mirror the companion bill introduced in the House, and that this strategy might not have been the best one to ensure EFCA’s passage. According to the article, Stern said:

We sort of have a bill that talks a lot about majority signup and nothing about the problems of the election system. . . That was probably a decision made in the House to have the same bill come up and potentially pass the same bill – which is not going to be a logical way to follow through now that we know . . . what the situation is.

There has been speculation for weeks whether organized labor would continue to push its “no compromise” position on EFCA in hopes of having a better outcome after the 2010 elections, or abandon EFCA in its current form and push for a compromise bill now that would reform rather than displace the election process. Weighing into that debate, Stern suggested that union election reform could take place without eliminating the secret ballot, and that unions should back such legislation without holding out hope that the 2010 election will result in a larger Democratic senate majority that could be more receptive to EFCA. Stern also acknowledged that President Obama has not made EFCA a legislative priority, and therefore cannot be counted on to rally the 60 votes needed to end an inevitable filibuster.

Stern appears to be the first union leader to publicly concede to EFCA’s slim chance of passage and to support alternative legislation. Much of the business community continues to oppose EFCA in any form, including any compromise, arguing among other things that union success rates in elections under current law demonstrate that there is no need for union election reform.
 
Tags: , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Trackbacks
  • Share Link