During the heyday of the labor movement, companies were much smaller. They were also, for the most part, not global. This meant that when labor struck a company, it had enough clout to win much of what is was striking for. As management understood that it could be hurt if there was a strike, it would generally provide as much as it could to its workers. Even in the railroad industry, where we have long been plagued by government interference with our right to strike nationally, railroad companies were much smaller and unions struck individual railroads with greater frequency without Congressional intervention. This led to a better way of life for all working Americans and provided upward mobility for the poor.

Since World War II, however, companies have been in a state of never ending mergers, especially in the railroad industry. While companies have merged at a rapid rate, unions have merged at a much slower rate. There are many reasons for this that we need not go into in this column. Our inability to change reflecting modifications in the companies that employ us led to a gradual, but steady deterioration of organized labor’s power. At the same time these newly merged companies increased their power. This led to a steady erosion of our ability to protect ourselves from anti-labor legislation and a steady decline in the percentage and numbers of labor union represented employees. In the 1950s, one out of every three workers were unionized. Now, in the private sector, one out of every nine are unionized.

It is true that unionized workers average $100 per week more than non-union workers and generally have much better health benefits than non-union workers. It is also true that certain non-union companies provide better wages and benefits to their workers than they would if they weren’t afraid of unionization. Labor is still a powerful force in society, but its power has been eroding for almost five decades.

Nearly everyone that I worked with on the railroad felt that the rail unions should merge into one rail union. Everyone understood and understands that if there was just one railroad union, we would have substantially more clout in dealing with the railroads than we do as a swarm of individual unions. From 1993 until recently, I made every attempt to foster such a movement. The BMWE sponsored numerous structures, worked untold hours and sacrificed greatly to attempt to achieve a united rail labor movement. We even had some success.

Even though we were making such attempts, BMWE leadership understood that uniting all of rail labor would not be enough to change the relationship of power in the rail industry. We understood that what was happening to rail labor was happening to all of us in organized labor. That is why we became so active in Sweeney/Trumka/Chavez-Thompson campaign to change leadership and direction within the AFL-CIO. We knew (and know) that the level of unity within labor as a whole, not just rail labor, was critical if we were going to make life better for our membership. We understood that even if rail labor was united, we would only represent about 200,000 employees. This would make us more powerful when dealing with the railroad companies, but not powerful enough to influence Congress and/or the Administration to maintain our benefits or when we found it necessary to strike.

Another concern is the relative scarcity of financial resources among the rail unions--even if they were united. Of them all, the BMWE is the most financially stable and it will be an almost impossible struggle for it to fund by itself the organizing and legislative efforts needed in the days and years ahead.

During the last round of bargaining, all of this became even clearer. The fact that the AFL-CIO had changed direction meant that we received active support from them at critical moments during the round. AFL-CIO President Sweeney became the first such president ever to testify at our Presidential Emergency Board. Secretary-Treasurer Trumka actively assisted us within the Administration to counteract the overtly political manner in which the railroads were functioning. All of this was done with active direction and participation from BMWE leadership.

During that struggle we also had the opportunity to observe the commitment of other unions, and particularly the SEIU, to a new direction within labor. When Grand Lodge and System Officers and staff sat in and got arrested at the National Mediation Board, 75 SEIU members picketed right along side of us. In addition to Richard Trumka, SEIU-President-Emeritus Richard Cordtz addressed our members on the picket line at the NMB. SEIU President Andrew Stern came to a meeting of our Grand Lodge and System Officers during the round and offered the support of SEIU in the event we would be forced to illegally strike the nation’s railroads to stop a PEB 219 type result. In the end, we did substantially better during this round than we have in a long time because of AFL-CIO and SEIU involvement.

It would take too long for me to explain the reasons why we were unsuccessful in merging with other rail unions despite our vigorous attempts to do so. Although we achieved some unity, we were unable to agree on philosophy and on common methods of bargaining and lobbying. However, the second part of the maximizing union power principle is achievable now. As a result of the relationship we developed with SEIU during the round, we have the opportunity to affiliate with this dynamic, progressive union.

SEIU is willing to guarantee our autonomy because it wants to maximize its power by expanding into the rail sector of the economy in a big way. Currently it represents workers who work for Bay Area Rapid Transport (BART) in San Francisco and the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers. If we affiliate, SEIU is willing to take its direction in the rail sector from BMWE and is willing to provide us with the muscle of its 1.1 million members in bargaining, in Congress, within the Administration and even within the AFL-CIO. Such an affiliation can do nothing but help to maximize union power in general, and BMWE and SEIU power, in particular. BMWE would continue to provide the same services to its membership as it currently does. We would still function under the BMWE Constitution and By-laws and the System divisions and federations would continue to function in the same fashion as they do today. Plus, we would have the added clout of a dynamic, progressive 1.1 million member union behind us with substantial resources and influence, as well as tremendously talented officers and staff.

Naturally, all of this would progress through the democratic processes that we have developed since I took office. Our Grand Lodge and System Officers must approve the affiliation first. And in the event they do approve it, it would still be up to you, the membership, to ratify or reject. It is my opinion, that in the end, this affiliation will make life better for all BMWE members in the United States and Canada. If our Grand Lodge and System Officers approve this affiliation, I am urging all of you to vote in favor of the affiliation. I believe it will improve all of our working lives, as well as the working lives of SEIU members.