History in the Making: Labor Party Founded in Cleveland

Outsized buttons proclaimed it “history in the making.” Indeed, nothing like it has been seen in the United States for decades.

Over 1,500 union members gathered in Cleveland June 6-9 to found a labor party. A groundswell of interest in the last two months turned what convention organizers had expected to be an event of 500-700 delegates to one of twice that size. The 1,367 delegates were joined by 200 or more observers.

There were some tense moments, hot controversies, and inspiring bursts of unity as the five-year-old Labor Party Advocates took its first step toward transforming itself into the Labor Party, as it will now be known.

It was the first time a labor party had been placed on the agenda of the labor movement since the late 1940’s. Some of the older delegates indicated they’d been waiting their whole lives for this moment.

The question now is what the new party—which is quite unlike what most Americans think of as a political party—will do with its momentum.

In his keynote address, Bob Wages, president of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, told the delegates, “We’ve got to organize to take our country back. This isn’t rocket science—this is understanding simply that there are more of us than there are of them.”

WHY WE’RE HERE

The new labor party’s “more of us…” philosophy was on display on the convention’s second day. The press reported that Cleveland Mayor Michael White was seeking to change what he called “obstructionist” state labor law for public employees, to give himself more power in dealing with unionized city workers. White is a liberal Democrat elected with union backing.

“Who would have thought,” said Wages, “that as soon as we arrived in Cleveland, the mayor would give us an illustration of exactly why we’re here. It’s a classic case, where a political candidate stands up with you, pats you on your back, has his arm around your shoulder, and is drizzling all over your shoe.”

The whole convention marched a block to City Hall to confront White, chanting and taking over the street, then followed a rumor that he was holed up in a nearby Marriott and occupied the hotel lobby. “We Want the Mayor Out!” turned to “Labor Party Now!” as delegates vented their frustration.

THE DELEGATES

The OCAW—which was LPA’s biggest backer all along—brought the most delegates, followed by the United Electrical Workers. Both scheduled regular union conferences for Cleveland to help maximize attendance. During the convention, these two groups did most of the negotiating of language changes presented to the body.

Other sizable groups were the California Nurses Association, the Farm Labor Organizing Committee with its red t-shirts and pennants, and various locals and individuals from the Service Employees. In the last month, both the American Federation of Government Employees and the United Mine Workers endorsed but did not bring contingents of any size.
About three quarters of the delegates were men and around 90 percent were white, in part reflecting the make-up of the four initial endorsing unions (OCAW, UE, Longshore Workers [ILWU], and Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees).

The party’s new leadership body, made up of representatives of the principal unions at the convention, will add more members in order to “reflect the diversity of the country as a whole.” Diversity in this case is defined as including race, gender, income level, and rank and file versus officer status.

SWEENEY A NO-SHOW

Convention organizers had hoped that AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, who was in Cleveland for a different meeting, would address the gathering. Instead Sweeny told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that “we should save the creation of a labor party to a non-presidential year.”

This semi-supportive stance contrasts sharply with that of former federation president Lane Kirkland. LPA founder Tony Mazzocchi of the OCAW relates that when the Cleveland Central Labor Council, for example, wanted to endorse LPA, it called AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington and got a green light. “Kirkland would have crushed us,” said Mazzocchi, “the way he did the CLC’s who wanted to support McGovern.”

In a forthcoming issue of Labor Research Review, Sweeney writes that although he’s personally skeptical about the wisdom of a third party, he encourages labor party supporters to take their best shot and send a signal to the Democrats.

NO CANDIDATES

SUPPORT LABOR NOTES

BECOME A MONTHLY DONOR

Give $10 a month or more and get our "Fight the Boss, Build the Union" T-shirt.

Perhaps the most controversial question of the convention, and its most important, according to Mazzocchi, was “the crucial issue of what kind of organization this was going to be initially.” The delegates voted to stay out of electoral politics—to neither endorse nor run candidates (although participation in ballot initiatives will be allowed).

Instead, the Labor Party’s “new organizing approach to politics” is designed to force existing officials and candidates to respond to its concerns. The rather vague resolution called for “working people to engage in common non-electoral political activities throughout the year, not just on election day.” It mentioned “innovative organizing efforts such as a campaign to restore the right to organize a union” and going door to door to gather support for the Labor Party’s program.

Mazzocchi argues that the labor movement should “learn from the success of the right in reshaping the whole national debate just by the use of language. You create a climate.” But at the convention, speakers from the floor argued that potential recruits won’t take the Labor Party seriously unless it contends for power in the usual way—elections.

Initially, language put forward by convention committees would have postponed any participation in elections till after “hundreds of thousands” of workers had been recruited and mobilized. Many speakers, though agreeing that the fledging party is not strong enough to field candidates very soon, were unhappy with putting elections off until the indefinite future.

The UE, the ILWU, and a caucus of delegates from the SEIU attempted to work out a compromise. New language changed the “hundreds of thousands’ to “significant numbers” and committed the next convention, in 1998, to reassess the question of elections.

When it reassesses in two years, the party will still face one of its central contradictions: organizers’ chief selling point to hesitant union leaders, national and local, has been the argument that they can be pro-labor party and still support Democratic politicians. This is only possible if the labor party does not field competing candidates of its own.

Clearly, a big chunk of members are far from ready to give up on the Democrats. A motion from the floor to ban endorsements of Democrats or Republicans was defeated overwhelmingly. A delegate from North Carolina, for example, argued that it would be a slap in the face to deny support to good Democratic members of Congress.

Martin Dunleavy, AFGE’s political director, points out that both he and AFGE President John Sturdivant are members of the Democratic National Committee—and he sees no contradiction there. “The point where I will see a contradiction has to do with the endorsement of candidates, especially if that endorsement means the acceptance of exclusivity [i.e., endorsing only Labor candidates],” said Dunleavy.

STRUCTURE

A second debate—over the structure and leadership bodies—reflected the tension between the leadership and the organization’s chapters. The 36 chapters represented at the convention have recruited most of the party’s activists and have pushed the hardest for an activist orientation at the local level. The leadership, however, feels that the key to growth is the affiliation of local and national unions. It worries that members of the chapters are sometimes unrealistic, and can’t mobilize the resources needed to sustain the organization.

The structure adopted reflects this tension, but does not resolve it. The Party will be governed by a National Council, made up moistly of representatives of endorsing unions. Chapters will hold their own annual convention, which will select five representatives—each with one-fifth of a vote—to the National Council.

A final sharp debate concerned the language around abortion rights in the platform. The drafters had written a pro-choice plank, but, in an attempt to placate anti-choice delegates or potential members, did not use the word “abortion.” An amendment to add “support for safe, legal abortion” was defeated.

WHAT NEXT?

The convention passed no action plan that would unite members in different unions or cities, nor did it discuss how to give the group national visibility, giving rise to questions about what the party will actually do. Given the disparity in conceptions about the party, this lack was perhaps inevitable.

Mazzocchi says, “I think being born is the common project. We have to go back now and communicate to folks back home…

"Our best recruiting is going to come after the election,” he says, “and subsequent disappointments that are going to grow.”