TV and radio shows for organized labor and working people.

Summer 2005

America@work: In lieu of an epitaph

Why won’t America@work carry reports of unions’ debate about labor’s future?

By Harry Kelber, ILCA Associate Member

January 05, 2005 — If you want to know what’s happening in the labor movement, you won’t find out much by reading America@work, the AFL-CIO’s monthly magazine [now defunct –Ed.].

Your best bet for important labor news is The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and Business Week, none of them particularly friendly to unions.

In its January 2005 issue, America@work uses its entire back page to ask union members to “help strengthen our union movement for the future.” It states that “the AFL-CIO is leading a detailed examination of what we must do to build strength for the future.”

Yet nowhere in the 24-page magazine is there any information about the 10-point program to revitalize the AFL-CIO that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has been publicizing widely in the commercial media. Why is there not even a mention of SEIU’s Unite to Win?

Thoughtful proposals for strengthening the labor movement have come from the Communication Workers of America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and a group of leaders representing 12 central labor councils. They each offer important recommendations that union members are entitled to be informed about. Why haven’t they been reported in the magazine?

It’s not for lack of space. The editors devote nine full pages to print comments from union members that we need good jobs, health care, social security, paid overtime and labor law reform. That’s hardly hot news. It’s what the AFL-CIO was repeating month after month during the election campaign. Is that the best use that the editors can make of nine blank pages?

America@work boasts on the cover page that it is a source for “Ideas, Info and Ammo for AFL-CIO Leaders and Activists.” I’d like to hear what seminal ideas the editors have contributed to the labor movement. What they have made abundantly clear is they’ll reject any idea, no matter how praiseworthy, if it is critical of the Sweeney team or comes from a known union dissident.

The magazine’s staff sees themselves as cheerleaders, always on the upbeat, even if it means disregarding reality. An example: “The American labor movement, measured by the loyalty and pride of our members, is the strongest in the world and is stronger today than ever before.” So why all the fuss about the critical need for change?

The magazine has made it a point not to carry any news about Iraq, terrorism or homeland security. It would not even include a holiday greeting to the many union brothers and sisters who are in the armed forces in Iraq.

America@work distributes about 165,000 copies to unions in bundles, apportioned to the per capita payments they pay the AFL-CIO. Slightly more than only 1% of the 13 million union members receive copies. Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka’s staff wouldn’t tell us what the cost of the magazine was in 2003, but it’s clearly an expensive publication, because its editors specialize in razzle-dazzle layouts and obsessive (and distracting) use of full color in nearly every story.

Since the Executive Council meeting in March will be making important changes in how the AFL-CIO functions, it’s an ideal time to take a hard look at labor’s official magazine. We suggest that the Council appoint a panel of distinguished labor editors selected by the International Labor Communications Association (ILCA) to study America@work over a three-month period and report its recommendations to the Council.

hkelber@igc.org