Andrew Kersten, author of an upcoming book examining the influence of the American Federation of Labor during World War II, compares the current rift in organized labor to the 17-year split between the AFL and CIO that ended 50 years ago.

And though doomsayers have been wrong before, this time labor has more strikes against it, Kersten said in an interview with Joel Dresang of the Journal Sentinel staff.

Q. In historic terms, how significant are this summer's developments in organized labor, with a handful of unions boycotting the AFL-CIO convention and three of the largest unions pulling out of the AFL-CIO?

A. It's enormously significant. It sort of mirrors what happened in the 1930s when the labor movement shattered right before a huge upswing in union activity. So it's interesting in that one might expect the labor movement to go either way. Either the schism will break the back of the labor movement or it will result in a terrific upswing, like in the 1930s. But there are a number of historical differences that will influence this one.

Q: What are some of those forces that are different?

A: One of the main things is the political environment at the national level. President Franklin Roosevelt made labor unions a cornerstone of his political structure, and President George W. Bush has not. In fact, President Bush has continued in the path of President Ronald Reagan and President George Herbert Walker Bush in sort of dismantling the federal structure to support unions and organizing. That makes this moment a very precarious one for unions. They're not going to get any help this time. Whatever they're going to do, they're going to do on their own.

Q: Historically, what has been the role of labor unions in this country and how has that changed?

A: What we recognize as a labor movement is a product of the early 20th century, and it got a lot of steam in the 1930s during the Great Depression and came to fruition during the 1940s during the second World War, when on average, one in every four workers belonged to a union.

At that moment, labor not only had a lot of numbers, it had a lot of power — power to influence the political process and also power to influence shop floors and working environments.

Labor unions stood most strongly for civil rights and women's rights and workplace safety and full employment. And as the labor movement has slowly crumbled over the last 30 years, those things have also fallen, as well. I would argue there's a direct correlation between the two.

Q: What lessons can we learn from the earlier breakup of the AFL and the CIO that are relevant to what's happening today?

A: One of them, which goes understated, is the power of personality. At some level, aside from all the other issues of organizing and the role of labor in American life, this is about that group of union leaders and whether they can get along or cannot get along.

If you look at the group of people that are leading the American labor movement today, they're very upset at each other. The question is: Do these people want to live and work together? These issues haven't changed, but they (union leaders) are going to have to confront them in new ways, and that's the question here.

The schism has pulled money — and it comes down to dollars — away from the AFL-CIO. And the question is, with fewer dollars, can they mount not only a challenge to these unions that left but also can they have enough money to win over the hearts and minds and dues of these workers?

Q: Do you have any early indications of how and when this is going to end up?

A: It's a little bit too soon, but it's coming. Recently, the AFL-CIO has been talking to locals of the internationals that have broken away. And that's where this battle will be won or lost.

If the locals continue to cooperate with the AFL-CIO, the AFL-CIO probably will be fine. If they stop, then these new unions — this new union movement — will have a lot more power and a lot more say. And that could really spell problems for the AFL.