At NLMC 2026, Michael Fina (Executive Director of the Union Labor Advisory Network) moderated a
discussion with TWU International President John Samuelsen, Teamsters leader Mike Smith, and BAC
Local 1 Secretary-Treasurer Tony LaCava on whether labor is “leaving power on the table” without
permanent, coordinated communications infrastructure. Panelists agreed the demand is real—workers
want unions and are reaching out—but converting that energy into durable gains requires investment in
organizing capacity, coalition coordination across unions, and modern, segmented communications that
blend face-to-face organizing with digital channels. The discussion also underscored structural
obstacles—employer stalling and weak labor law—making coordinated strategy and member education
essential to sustaining momentum.
Michael Fina Hosting the Union Strong App Panel at NLMC 2026
1) Where labor power is working right now—and why it’s working
One of the clearest takeaways from the panel: public support is strong, and interest in unions is high. Workers see unions fighting, and it changes what they believe is possible. The harder question is why that energy doesn’t automatically turn into higher membership and lasting power.
The panel’s implicit answer: labor power is strongest where unions combine three things at once:
In other words, worker interest is high, but few of them join or get involved. What happens next depends on whether unions can act quickly, communicate clearly, and give workers a clear way to participate. Mobilization is not scarce right now—conversion is. When workers reach out, what happens next depends on whether unions can move quickly, tell the story clearly, and offer a path from interest to participation.
2) Coordination: the difference between isolated effort and movement power
The panel didn’t treat coordination as a nice-to-have; it treated it as the price of admission—especially in environments where multiple unions touch the same political and employer terrain.
Tony LaCava put it plainly from the building trades perspective:
“It’s always power in numbers… the days you just go down by yourself… don’t work anymore.”
John Samuelsen made the same point, speaking about the transit sector: when multiple unions sit in the same system, subway, bus, and adjacent operations, wins depend on presenting a collective front. He described TWU working closely with sister unions so that bargaining fights and system-wide public issues can’t be isolated or divided.
And Mike Smith offered a concrete rail example that sharpened why this matters across unions, not just within them. He described how the Teamsters’ rail work runs through a rail conference coalition—coordinating with other rail unions—and emphasized that TWU is part of that broader rail coalition effort. The underlying message was simple: the structure of rail labor relations (and the politics around it) punishes fragmentation. If unions want leverage against employers—and influence on Capitol Hill—they have to show up unified.
That’s the practical meaning of coordination: when unions align around shared leverage points—timing, messaging, and mutual support—wins become more repeatable. When unions operate in isolation, the employer (or the broader system) gets to pick them off one at a time.
The implication is not abstract: coordination has to become an operating discipline—shared narratives, shared timing, and shared infrastructure—not just good relationships.
3) Where momentum breaks down in a multi-channel world
The panel named a reality most unions feel every day: communication isn’t one channel anymore. It’s fragmented across platforms, groups, and generations. And when messaging is inconsistent, engagement drops—especially among new members and younger workers.
Mike Smith captured the core risk in one line:
“If I’m only utilizing a union bulletin board… to let my members know what’s going on, I failed at my job.”
This isn’t a knock on tradition—it’s a warning against sticking with the same old communication in a changed world. People don’t engage with unions the way they used to, so building momentum requires using the channels and tools members actually pay attention to today.
4) What activates members (not just informs them)
A second major theme: communication that activates members is not just more content. It’s communication that makes members feel:
John Samuelsen described the modern shift as both tactical and strategic—targeted outreach tied directly to organizing drives and contract fights:
“We geofence our own work locations to get message out… Everything… has to be a blend of old school… face-to-face organizing blended with as much technology as we would use into the equation.”
Tony LaCava made the generational point even more operational, describing the daily drumbeat needed to build familiarity and trust:
“That doesn’t work anymore… we have an Instagram page… every day something goes up… and that’s how another generation connects.”
Across all three perspectives, the takeaway is consistent: the “activation” problem is rarely about members not caring. It’s about whether unions have the systems to reach members consistently, credibly, and with a clear next step.
5) The structural obstacle we can’t ignore - stalling employers and weak rules
One of the most important momentum insights surfaced when the conversation turned to what happens after an organizing win. The challenge isn’t only getting workers to vote yes—it’s converting a win into a first contract when employers can stall for long periods.
Mike Smith put the stakes plainly: workers want unions, but the law often fails them once the vote is won—because stalling becomes the employer’s next strategy. That reality changes what “momentum” must mean: it’s not only about communications tactics; it’s also about coordinated strategies—inside and outside the workplace—that keep members engaged through the long middle stretch of pressure, bargaining, and enforcement.
The prescription: a Momentum Operating System (not a one-off campaign)
For unions, the takeaway isn’t “use more platforms.” It’s: install a repeatable operating system that turns mobilization into sustained participation.
Here’s a model any union can implement immediately:
The Momentum Loop (weekly cadence)
This loop is how you keep the union “alive” between big moments—so each surge of mobilization feeds the next, instead of evaporating.
How the Union Strong Network makes momentum repeatable across locals
Momentum doesn’t die because people don’t care. It dies because systems don’t exist to carry the work forward week after week. The Union Strong Network is designed to be that system:
In other words: Union Strong doesn’t replace organizing—it extends organizing through infrastructure built the way people actually receive information now.
The question for the next 2–3 years
The opportunity is real, but it won’t compound by accident. The next step is to treat communications as organizing capacity—measured, coordinated, and permanent—so that every surge of mobilization feeds a deeper layer of participation.
If we want to stop “leaving power on the table,” the work is clear:
Build the infrastructure that turns demand into durable momentum.
Contact Union Strong App to learn how you can modernize your communication strategy and turn today’s demand into lasting power. For more information: UnionStrongApp.com