"We must have more union members in this country to fight the political and business forces that are undermining workers in this country. The AFL-CIO has chosen the opposite approach by planning to throw even more money at politicians"
About this Quote
James P. Hoffa argues that the core of labor power is membership, not check-writing. The line sets up a strategic divide inside the U.S. labor movement: build power by organizing workers into unions, or try to influence outcomes by pouring money into electoral politics. He is blunt that business and political forces are aligned in undermining workers, and that only a larger, mobilized base of union members can counter that pressure. The critique of the AFL-CIO is less about partisanship than about method. Funding campaigns can buy access but rarely changes the underlying balance of power at the workplace, where wages, schedules, and safety are decided.
The context is the mid-2000s fight over the future of organized labor, when union density had fallen for decades and the Teamsters, along with SEIU and other unions, created the Change to Win coalition to prioritize large-scale organizing. Hoffa’s view reflects frustration that heavy political spending had not delivered labor law reform, curbed union-busting, or reversed wage stagnation. He suggests that the path to political influence runs through organizing: more members mean more bargaining leverage, more strike capacity, and, eventually, more electoral clout grounded in lived power rather than donations.
There is an implicit critique of a top-down strategy. Political spending can be cyclical, transactional, and vulnerable to disappointment when allies fail to deliver. Organizing, by contrast, is slow, messy, and demanding, but it builds durable institutions and norms of solidarity that outlast one election cycle. Hoffa is not denying the need for politics; he is reordering priorities. Labor needs legislative change on issues like the right to organize and collective bargaining protections, but it also needs the credible threat that only numbers and unity can provide. The message is a call to invest in the hard work of bringing new workers into unions as the most reliable way to confront the forces reshaping the economy against them.
The context is the mid-2000s fight over the future of organized labor, when union density had fallen for decades and the Teamsters, along with SEIU and other unions, created the Change to Win coalition to prioritize large-scale organizing. Hoffa’s view reflects frustration that heavy political spending had not delivered labor law reform, curbed union-busting, or reversed wage stagnation. He suggests that the path to political influence runs through organizing: more members mean more bargaining leverage, more strike capacity, and, eventually, more electoral clout grounded in lived power rather than donations.
There is an implicit critique of a top-down strategy. Political spending can be cyclical, transactional, and vulnerable to disappointment when allies fail to deliver. Organizing, by contrast, is slow, messy, and demanding, but it builds durable institutions and norms of solidarity that outlast one election cycle. Hoffa is not denying the need for politics; he is reordering priorities. Labor needs legislative change on issues like the right to organize and collective bargaining protections, but it also needs the credible threat that only numbers and unity can provide. The message is a call to invest in the hard work of bringing new workers into unions as the most reliable way to confront the forces reshaping the economy against them.
Quote Details
| Topic | Justice |
|---|
More Quotes by James
Add to List
