1M1V: A Trojan Horse for Union-Busting

This isn’t about democracy.
It’s about weakening our union and giving power to anti-union groups.

Anti-Union Groups Are Cheering for 1M1V

The Freedom Foundation (a right-wing, anti-union group) has long opposed public-sector unions and pushed for policies that weaken them.

“We’re a battle tank that’s battering the entrenched power of left-wing government union bosses.”

— The Freedom Foundation —

If the Freedom Foundation supports 1M1V, should we?

While We Debate Voting, They Attack Our Rights

The 1M1V push diverts attention from real threats to AFSCME:

  • Right-to-work laws (which the Freedom Foundation supports).
  • Attacks on collective bargaining (e.g., Florida’s SB 256, which the Freedom Foundation lobbied for).
  • Privatization and outsourcing of public-sector jobs.

Do we really have time for this debate when our pensions, healthcare, and jobs are on the line?

1M1V Didn’t Fix Problems for UAW or Teamsters — It Created New Ones

UAW

  • Switched to 1M1V only after a federal corruption scandal—not because it was the best system, but because the DOJ forced it.
  • Result: Low turnout, fractured leadership, ongoing infighting.

Teamsters

  • Have had 1M1V for 35 years—yet turnout remains low, and members still feel disconnected.

1M1V didn’t save the UAW or Teamsters from corruption or decline. Strong leadership and member engagement did.

Disenfranchising Thousands: The Unspoken Cost of 1M1V

The 1M1V amendment actively disenfranchises three groups of AFSCME members.

Retirees

After a lifetime of service, retirees would lose their right to vote for the leaders who will shape the future of the union they helped build.

Voluntary At-Large Members

These members choose to join AFSCME even without a bargaining unit. Under 1M1V, their loyalty would be repaid with silence.

Members in At-Will States

In states where collective bargaining is banned, AFSCME is often the only voice workers have. 1M1V would take that voice away.

1M1V is about fairness, why does it exclude so many members from the process?

‘Equal Rights’ Shouldn’t Mean Excluding Members

The 1M1V amendment claims to promote equality (“each vote cast shall be of equal weight”).

In reality, it ignores the Members’ Bill of Rights:

“Members shall have the right to fair and democratic elections at all levels of the union. This includes due notice of nominations and elections, equal opportunity for competing candidates, and proper election procedures which shall be constitutionally specified.“

— AFSCME Members’ Bill of Rights —

Current Delegate System

All members have representation (via delegates).

1M1V System

Retirees, at-large, and at-will members lose their voice.

How can we call this ‘equal rights’ when we’re taking rights away from thousands?

Scroll to top