John Wilhelm Statement on UNITE-HERE

[On Monday, the General Executive Board of UNITE-HERE voted to reject a proposal to end the merger of the two unions.

Talking Union is presenting statements on the controversial issues in UNITE-HERE by its two Presidents, John Wilhelm and Bruce Raynor. Please read both documents.  We expect to provide on-going coverage of the issues involved.]

John W. Wilhelm, President/Hospitality Industry
February 8, 2009

Labor unions, like any other entity attempting to govern itself democratically and for the common good of its members, face the difficult challenge of devising a sound system of government. This may be the labor movement’s fundamental challenge. How does a large International Union like ours, representing the interests of people working across two nations and innumerous industries, balance competing interests, ensure the will of the majority is respected while the voice of the minority is heard, continue to inspire the loyalty and unity of every part of the Union, and make difficult choices intelligently? In other words, how can the Union govern itself in a way that is wise, fair, effective, strong, honest, and democratic?

The system of governance of a labor union is laid out in its Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme governing document of the Union and the ultimate source of authority within the Union. It determines the basic rules and procedures by which all decisions are reached. A Constitution should be able to withstand the test of time, and should protect the organization against the faults, flaws and fallibility of its individual office-holders. A good Constitution contains an intelligent system of checks on, and distribution of, power; effective mechanisms to ensure integrity and fairness; and reliable guarantees of the rights of all Union members. Its design should never be based on personal trust in the wisdom or good faith of any individual or individuals.

When UNITE and HERE merged, a Constitution was negotiated by representatives of the two Unions and approved without debate by the merger convention. An unusual governing structure was contrived which vested immense power jointly in the International Union and in the hands of two men, the General President, Bruce Raynor, and the President of the Hospitality Division, myself, referred to collectively as “the Presidents.” Although necessary in the context of the merger, our Constitution is not a governing document that can withstand the test of time.

I strongly believe the merger was the right thing to do for our members and I would do it again tomorrow. However, since the merger, differences have existed among us. As time has passed, those differences have not been resolved. They extend to the working relationship between Bruce Raynor and myself. One thing Bruce and I agree on is that we have not been working together constructively. This situation makes the need for Constitutional reform more obvious and more urgent.

It has become clear to me that President Raynor and I have very different ideas about how the Union should be governed. President Raynor forthrightly espouses his strong belief that power in the Union should be centralized and concentrated in the person of the President, and that the affiliates should be totally subordinate to the President.

In fact, President Raynor has attempted to claim for the Presidents even greater powers than the Constitution allows. For example, he has denied powers clearly granted the GEB, such as the fundamental authority set forth in Article 3, Section 6, granting the GEB “general supervisory powers over all the affairs of UNITE HERE”, as well as the power to resolve disputes between the Presidents clearly granted in Article 3, Sections 3 and 6. He has unilaterally exercised powers jointly shared by both Presidents. President Raynor has violated the Constitution by flagrantly disregarding the directives of the Executive Committee, which exercises the authority of the GEB between sessions.

President Raynor also openly admits that he believes his powers should be used unilaterally to trade away the contractual rights of our affiliates and their members to obtain voluntary recognition at non-Union shops (i.e. “growth”) from major corporations. President Raynor has frequently stated that the Union’s greatest enemy is “standards.” By “standards,” he means contractual standards regarding our members’ wages, benefits and working conditions – standards the Union has fought hard to establish over many years.

I too understand that the most important goal our International Union must pursue is growth. Unless we organize on a much larger scale and increase Union density in the industries within UNITE HERE’s jurisdiction, the power of our Union will wither and die. It is also sometimes appropriate to negotiate with major corporations to obtain neutrality card check agreements, to remove employer resistance to organizing. However, such agreements should not be made at the expense of the very standards that are at the core of the Union’s purpose. The Union cannot expect to grow, by making itself less relevant and beneficial to its members. Such a course would ultimately destroy the Union.

I am also opposed to President Raynor’s insistence on greater centralization of power in the Union, and more specifically, in the Presidents. The leaders of the affiliates of our Union are directly elected by and accountable to the membership. It is their responsibility, and they are best qualified, to make decisions that affect the negotiation and enforcement of their members’ collective bargaining agreements. It should not be possible for the International Union Presidents, plural or singular, to use their powers to impose their political will on the affiliates or their elected leaders. Doing so robs the members of their most important democratic rights within the Union.

The differences between President Raynor and myself are fundamental, and represent diverging roads down which our Union can choose to travel. It is therefore a reality that the Union will have to find an alternative to the existing partnership between Bruce Raynor and me. I’m sorry to say, it also appears to be a reality that both Bruce and I are mistrusted by people within our Union.

This means that, as the Convention approaches, people in our Union are faced with the possible prospect of the “wrong” President soon taking possession of all the powers described above. People feel vulnerable and threatened. People understandably believe that the “wrong” President could and would abuse his powers to consolidate control of the Union by crushing his opposition.

Because of these fears, the differences between us have turned into an open fight that has manifested itself in affiliates’ offices across the country, at the Amalgamated Bank, in cyberspace, and in the Union’s Executive Committee. Ultimately, the fight will be won and lost in the GEB and at the Union’s Convention.

But we should ask ourselves: “What then?” Will those that prevail allow their leader to keep all the Presidential powers enumerated in this Constitution? If so, how could any officers of the Union or of any affiliate, no matter what side they were on, feel confident that they would continue to remain safely in the President’s, or his successor’s, good graces? Will the losers who, like all of us, have devoted their lives to the Union, be forced out, or marginalized? That’s not the kind of Union we should be.

All the members and officers of our Union should be able to voice their opinions, run for office, and even strenuously oppose the President of the International Union, without fear of retaliation.