_{cross-posted at WorkplaceHorizons.com}

By Bryan O’Keefe

When the Service Employees International Union formally left the AFL-CIO two years ago and formed the Change to Win labor federation, one of the public points of contention was that the labor movement was too focused on politics in general, and electing Democratic politicians in particular.

For example, SEIU President Andy Stern, who was the driving force for the eventual split, wrote on his blog at the time that, “I also agree that the labor movement has been too much of an appendage of the Democratic Party.” He was also quoted as saying, “We can’t just elect Democratic politicians and try to take back the House and take back the Senate and think that’s going to change workers’ lives.”

At the time, Mr. Stern said that John Sweeney’s strategy as AFL-CIO head – which relied heavily on political contributions – was flawed and that in order to revitalize, labor must instead focus on grassroots organizing.

But in evaluating Change to Win two years later, it’s now clear that SEIU and the other Change to Win unions have changed very little when it comes to politics. A recent New York Times story entitled “A Union With Clout Stakes Its Claim on Politics” outlined the pivotal role that Mr. Stern and SEIU is playing in the current Democratic primary. The story notes that in 2008:

The union is expected to collect $40 million for its political action committee, which was the largest in the 2006 campaign. It plans to spend $30 million more in internal funds for getting out the vote and shining a spotlight on lawmakers who have helped thwart its agenda on national issues like expanding the State Child Health Insurance Program.

The story then talks about Mr. Stern personally, claiming that:

Mr. Stern spends much of his week on politics, engaging in strategy talks at the union’s Washington headquarters, discussing legislation in Congress, conversing with local leaders about what is happening around the country and giving pep talks to the rank and file about the importance of the campaign.

Why the change from labor being “too much of an appendage of the Democratic Party” to “spending much of his week on politics?” The most compelling answer is that labor believes that it can taste victory this year. Democrats are in a strong position headed into 2008 with the myriad of problems facing the GOP. Already, political spending in 2006 has paid off with a Democratic congress providing unions with many important pieces of legislation, which this blog has documented. The largest one is still the Employee Free Choice Act and the biggest obstacle there is the White House. But if labor can play a major role in helping elect a Democratic president, it will be almost impossible for that president not to support EFCA.

In the end, for all of the rhetoric about staying out of politics and forging a new way for labor, Stern and most other labor leaders are going to be fully committed to the ballot box in the upcoming year and view the political process as the easiest way to reverse labor’s fortunes. Change to Win’s supposed new direction of massive organizing has had few successes. They obviously now believe that their resources would be more wisely spent on winning political races and subsequently passing legislation. Employers would be wise to take note of this strategy.

Bryan O'Keefe is a labor policy analyst in Washington, D.C. He is a frequent contributor to EFCA Updates and WorkplaceHorizons.com.