Back in 2005, there was a very strong difference of opinion on what unions should be doing in the present that led to the split of the AFL-CIO. One group led by SEIU and the Teamsters wanted to focus more on union organizing and growing membership. The other side led by John Sweeney at the AFL-CIO were said to want to continue pursuing the political side. While that is a very simplistic summary I’ve just given I think it recalls the basic cause of the fissure. However, there are journalists like Phil Dine who feel that the split wasn’t necessecary, as if the AFL-CIO really couldn’t do both.

Now it appears that Change to Win and the AFL-CIO want to mend things:

To bring about reunification, several labor leaders have called for revamping and modernizing the A.F.L.-C.I.O., traditionally the nation’s main federation, currently with 56 member unions. But several labor leaders have called for replacing the A.F.L.-C.I.O. with a new, more dynamic group.

There was general agreement that any future federation should focus on political and legislative matters, while also serving to encourage individual unions to do more to organize workers.

The leaders of several breakaway unions have called for changing the name of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. because they had vowed never to return to the same federation.

Do they really have to change the name? Well, maybe it might be a good thing to signal a new direction possibly. It is also interesting to see that the NEA is getting involved with this reunificaiton attempt.