> Counterpunch, January 17, 2003 > > Workers Against War > > "Our members are split 50/50 on Bush. Fifty don't believe a word he > says. Fifty think he's a liar." > > by JOANN WYPIJEWSKI > > As entrails to ancient augurs, the water in toilets on upper floors of > the Sears Tower presents to us signs, omens, the coded messages from > which to coax the metaphors for our age. Lapping back and forth within > the bowls, the water betrays the ceaseless stress and sway of America's > tallest building. "The whole thing is basically just a steel skeleton. > Think of the steel as a wire", my friend Marty Conlisk, a union > electrician who has worked on just about every skyscraper in Chicago, > suggested. "What happens when you put stress on a wire? It bends. Enough > stress, over enough time, and it snaps." Outside the Tower a banner > exhorts passersby, "Stand Tall America". Marty figures that "one day > they're going to have to take the building down, or it's going to come > down". > > I was in Chicago for a meeting on January 11 of about 100 union antiwar > advocates or activists from across the country, gathered there to > initiate a national labor organization against a war that, in its > hottest phase, has yet to begin. The term "historic", used throughout > the day, was not misplaced. Among the group were Staughton Lynd from > Youngstown, who'd chaired the first demonstration on Washington against > the Vietnam War in April of 1965; Frank Emspak from Wisconsin, who'd > chaired the National Coordinating Committee to End the War in Vietnam > when it called the first mass days of protest in October 1965; and Jerry > Tucker from St. Louis, who was present when unions formed a peace > faction outside the ultra-hawkish AFL-CIO in 1971, by which time, as he > notes, the Vietnamese had won the war. Something profoundly different is > happening now, and while it's unclear how broad labor opposition will > become, its very existence, now given national expression, represents > the deepest crack in the supposed consensus for war. > > The working class, unions particularly, aren't usually associated with > antiwar sentiment. Immediately after 9.11, the Machinists famously > bellowed for "vengeance not justice," John Sweeney said the unions stood > "shoulder to shoulder" with George Bush in the war on terror, and many > labor leftists dove for cover, saying even raising a discussion on the > prospect of endless war was too risky. There was a war at home the > latter argued-the sinking economy, assaults on immigrants-and it could > be neatly filleted from the war abroad. > > At least as many people were killed in Afghanistan as died in New York, > and in exchange for fealty to national security through slaughter, the > Machinists at got layoffs at Boeing, layoffs in the airline industry, a > concessionary contract at Lockheed Martin. Sweeney and Co. got to watch > as Bush intervened against the West Coast longshore workers and > threatened to strip dockworkers permanently of the right to strike, as > civil servants first in the US Attorneys' offices, then in the Office of > Homeland Security lost collective bargaining rights, as immigrants were > fired from their airport screening jobs and unions forbidden to > organize, as 850,000 government jobs crept toward the privatizing block, > as unemployment rose, benefits ran out, the rich got goodies and > government workers, soldiers included, were stiffed on pay. For its > part, the timorous left got more evidence than needed of the naivete of > its argument. (It also has to be said that a few bold labor leftists > have paid for their early stance against war with the loss of their > elective offices, but they were never under illusions that principle > comes without a price.) > > Now enters US Labor Against the War. Its creation does not signal an > about-face by top union leadership, though that is to be desired, but > rather the convergence of an antiwar spirit first expressed in ad hoc > labor organizations in New York, San Francisco and Washington, then in > an increasing number of local labor bodies throughout the country. The > AFL-CIO is still in the war column, though more reluctantly. The > executive council of only one International union, AFSCME, has passed a > resolution against war on Iraq. That one considers such an invasion a > distraction from the war on terror and "a last resort", assuming the UN > gives the go-ahead, but it is interesting because at the union's > convention last June the leadership did all it could to silence and > isolate antiwar delegates. Ultimately, it could not ignore what was > percolating from below. > > US Labor Against the War is the result of a similar process. Since 9.11 > at least forty-two locals, fourteen district or regional councils, > thirteen central labor councils, five state federations, four national > labor organizations and twenty-two local committees have passed antiwar > resolutions. These represent more than two million people, and that > estimate is low, as many more labor bodies have gone on record than were > counted in time for the Chicago meeting. > > > "We are having this meeting because our members demanded it", Jerry > Zero, secretary treasurer of Teamsters Local 705 in Chicago, which > hosted the gathering, said at the outset. "Our membership is split > 50-50. Fifty percent don't believe a thing President Bush says, and 50 > percent think he's a liar." > > Local 705 is the second-largest local in the Teamsters. Zero, who has > long been identified with progressive causes, calls its members largely > conservative. While there are members who dispute this, it's fair to say > that truck drivers in the Heartland do not fit any standard antiwar > profile. Last October at a general meeting a member of the local > introduced an antiwar resolution. His father fought in Vietnam and bears > the psychic scars. The statement does not embrace or even mention the > war on terror, the disarming of Saddam, UN inspections or international > military coalitions. It simply states, "We value the lives of our sons > and daughters, of our brothers and sisters more that Bush's control of > Middle East oil profits", and "We have no quarrel with the ordinary > working-class men, women and children of Iraq who will suffer the most > in any war". After noting the economic implications for the US working > class, it resolves that "Teamsters Local 705 stands firmly against > Bush's drive for war". Zero said he had expected vigorous disagreement > and was stunned when, out of 403 members present, no one spoke in favor > of war. The resolution passed 402 to 1. 705's resolution became the > template for the resolution ultimately adopted, with additions and > alterations, as the statement of US Labor Against the War. (See below.) > Here, though, there was lengthy, passionate debate. It's worth reviewing > that briefly for the larger lessons it holds. > > First, disagreement needn't lead to ruin. As Bob Muehlenkamp, a longtime > labor organizer who coordinated the Chicago meeting, noted, the subject > at hand was one of the most emotionally and politically charged issues > humanity faces. It would have been bizarre, even troubling, if everyone > present-from union staff to principal officers to radical rank and > file-had moved in sheeplike agreement. People got excited, ideas were > fought over, compromises reached; no one stormed out or tried to scuttle > the project, and by the end of the day people who had been at opposite > poles of the debate said they could work with the result. Second, a > united front requires a confrontation on just what is unifying. Debate > hinged on whether the new group should support the disarming of Iraq, > containment of Iraq, UN multilateralism and inspections, or whether, > like 705's statement, it should stick to simple principles of national > and international class interest and opposition to war. The whole > morning had been spent setting the table for the group to adopt the > former position. Muehlenkamp pointed out a series of internal union > polls showing that people are more likely to oppose war if the US goes > ahead without UN approval. David Cortwright of Keep America Safe/Win > Without War, which he described as "a mainstream patriotic coalition of > Americans who are concerned about Iraq but don't want to go to war" and > which includes the Sierra Club, Business Leaders for Sensible > Priorities, the NAACP and religious groups, had been invited to speak. > He went into copious detail about UN procedures-a subject guaranteed to > encourage the average person to switch off-and explained how "we can win > against Iraq, we can win the war on terrorism" without an invasion or > other US unilateral action. It was all perfectly understandable. > > Washington is crawling with labor officials, some International union > presidents, who would like to take a stand against war but are scared. > They might be emboldened behind the shield of the UN, shoulder to > shoulder now with liberal business leaders. The problem is, at least > half the people in the room believe that the war on terror, the threats > to Iraq are part of a US imperial policy, that the US has and will > manipulate the UN, that evidence against Iraq can always be manufactured > or exaggerated for convenience sake, that solidarity with workers of the > world places labor in natural opposition to a war agenda and that any > talk about crises in the Middle East cannot ignore the question of > Palestine. Bill Fletcher, formerly education director of the AFL-CIO, > now the head of TransAfrica and a convener of the United for Peace and > Justice coalition, spoke strongly on these issues and then warned, "We > have to have a broad level of unity. If we make anti-imperialism the > premise of our work then we're building a sect, and I'm too old for > that". > > Somehow along the way, though, the UN position got defined as the > neutral one. A draft resolution was presented reflecting that, to which > a group of delegates counterpoised a modified version of 705's > resolution. Thus began the debate. (Interest declared: I attended the > meeting as a delegate from New York City Labor Against the War, which > was formed soon after September 11, and this substitute draft resolution > was initiated by two of our group's conveners, Michael Letwin and Brenda > Stokely.) There were flared tempers, even moments of redbaiting. It > seems some people had so prepared themselves for a sectarian hijacking > of the proceedings that they were responding to some imagined > revolutionary manifesto rather than to the plainspoken prose of a > Chicago truck driver. And of course other people stood to denounce labor > bureaucrats, the Democratic Party, or sometimes just to hear themselves > talk. Out of this wrangle came a basic understanding: unity demands > simplicity and allows for differences. The final resolution has elements > of both proposed drafts and includes neither patriotism nor Palestine; > it makes no rhetorical flourish on the nature of fundamentalism or > capitalism; it neither embraces the UN nor denounces American > imperialism. It therefore allows all of those subjects and many more to > be freely explored and debated in discussion and organization among > workers, which is, or should be, the whole point. > > Third, no one has a monopoly on representing workers' view of the world. > It's not true that workers are all conservative flag-wavers any more > than it's true that they're all organic anticapitalists waiting to be > turned loose against the system. One of the problems with drafting > resolutions that are meant to reflect what workers think or what workers > will be comfortable with is that the process can so easily tip into > essentialism. In Chicago there were moments when it seemed all of > organized labor was being characterized as obsessed with terrorism and > national security, scared to death, inclined to support military action > though movable depending on the details. Yet again and again delegates > would tell of how the workers had surprised them: how they voted > unanimously against war, how discussion was heartfelt and strangely > one-sided, how the head of the local building trades council, against > all expectation, took an antiwar stand. Many things determine the > picture: race, sex, age, income, experience-and sometimes nothing anyone > could have predicted. What can probably be said without fear of > contradiction is that a lot of people are confused and their information > is bad, and that even if they have misgivings about war they don't think > it's a subject for the union to take up. That last is a legacy of > decades in which unions either recused themselves from discussion on the > most compelling political issues of the day or were complicit with > government policy and thus developed no independent analysis. Given how > anxious union leaders are said to be about sticking their necks out on > the war question, maybe the most valuable thing they could do is to > initiate open forums, where information could be shared and issues > engaged in freewheeling fashion. As at Local 705, their members might > surprise them. Similarly, those labor bodies that have taken a stand > might further the discussions they've already had. If they've passed > resolutions supporting UN but not US intervention in Iraq, what if the > UN gives America its fig leaf and the sons and daughters of the working > class go into battle? What if the go-ahead is bought with US bribes and > threats? If labor bodies have passed straight-up antiwar resolutions, > what happens if a war on Iraq begins and is answered by terrorist > attacks in the United States? The debates are far from exhausted, and > this is a time to talk with people, not at them. > > In this spirit, on the night before the Chicago meeting, Local 705 > co-sponsored, with local labor antiwar activists, a panel discussion the > likes of which ought to be replicated in union halls, schools, community > centers, veterans groups, anywhere that people open to experience and to > the strong, true voice of the heart may gather. It was billed as "Labor > Voices and Veteran Voices Against War" but that hardly captures it. Bill > Davis, an early joiner of Vietnam Veterans Against the War and the chief > steward of a UPS Machinists local in Chicago, called it "a dream come > true", merging his labor and antiwar identities. And his talk, about the > nature of the military and its recruitment, the economic draft, the > plight of veterans, the history of the American Legion as a home for > strikebreakers, vigilantes, Klansmen and warmongers, put the class angle > of militarism up front, inescapably. > > Loretta Byrd, recording secretary of Teamsters Local 738 in Chicago, > talked about family and home, the twin threats of war and joblessness, > and proved there are more compelling ways to say no to war than through > union resolutions, prompting the audience, "We've all heard that song > 'War-What is it good for?''" and then, shaking her finger, "'Absolutely > nothing.'" I imagined that through everyone's head might have been > running "It ain't nothing but a heartbreaker/friend only to the > undertaker...induction, then destruction, who wants to die?" > > Trent Willis of ILWU Local 10 out of Oakland described the heavy weather > for longshore workers. Brenda Stokely, who is also president of AFSCME > District Council 1707 in New York, reminded people that "the things that > are worth fighting for always take a lot of nerve" and then challenged > the crowd, in words applicable far beyond that room: "If you cannot talk > to your relatives about your politics, your politics are irrelevant. If > you cannot talk to your neighbors about your politics, your politics are > irrelevant. If you cannot talk to your co-workers about your politics, > your politics ain't worth having." > > Dan Lane, who trade unionists across the country know from his > galvanizing role in the Staley struggle of the early 1990s in Decatur, > spoke of growing up in a boys' home and entering the Marine Corps at 17 > because "it was just a natural progression" from the boot-camp style > home and Saturday afternoons spent watching Hollywood war movies. He did > two tours of duty in Vietnam, saw more carnage than a soul is meant to > handle, beat up an officer, was demoted from sergeant, collapsed, came > home and went through twenty-two jobs in four years. He recalled that > during the Staley struggle Illinois was called "The War Zone" because of > all the strikes or lockouts there at the time. "There is a war that is > continually being waged against workers", he said. "That is the way of > life. It's a war where people don't usually come out and have strikes. > It's a war where someone is just forced to sign a piece of paper. > Because that's what most people deal with going into negotiations every > day. It's not about negotiations; it's about them telling you what > you're supposed to accept. And most of the time, people accept; you > don't hear about them." The war abroad had come home. It just took a > while to realize it had always been home. > > Rather than spend gobs of money on ads in The New York Times that nobody > reads, antiwar groups, particularly those like US Labor Against the War, > ought to take this kind of talk on the road. There isn't so much support > for the war program that some real soul-to-soul and pressure in the > right places can't turn it around. During question time an 18-year-old > from DePaul University who is trying to rouse students against the war > said he thought the veterans should come to his school. After all, he > said, he has only 18 years of knowledge and experience, "and that's not > a lot". > > Footnote: US Labor Against the War has as its immediate objective > building the largest possible labor participation in the January 18 > demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco. Workers, friends and > family are urged to assemble in DC, with union colors and banners > ablaze, at 12 PM at 4th and Jefferson Dr. SW (at the northeast corner - > 2 blocks south and west of 3rd & Constitution). In San Francisco, > they are asked to meet at 11 AM at Drumm and Market Streets, in front of > the Hyatt Hotel. Another aim is to get as many unions and labor bodies > to adopt or endorse the founding resolution. For more information, > contact [EMAIL PROTECTED], or [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > WE ESTABLISH U.S. LABOR AGAINST THE WAR > > WHEREAS, over 100 trade unionists from 76 local, regional and national > unions, central labor councils and other labor organizations > representing over 2 million members gathered in Chicago for an > unprecedented meeting to discuss our concerns about the Bush > administration's threat of war; and > > WHEREAS, union members and leaders have the responsibility to inform all > working people about issues that affect their lives, jobs and families, > and to be heard in the national debate on these issues; and > > > WHEREAS, the principal victims of any military action in Iraq will be > the sons and daughters of working class families serving in the military > who will be put in harm's way, and innocent Iraqi civilians who have > already suffered so much; and > > > Whereas, we have no quarrel with the ordinary working class men, women > and children of Iraq, or any other country; and > > > Whereas, the billions of dollars spent to stage and execute this war are > being taken away from our schools, hospitals, housing and Social > Security; and > > Whereas, the war is a pretext for attacks on labor, civil, immigrant and > human rights at home; and > > Whereas, Bush's drive for war serves as a cover and distraction for the > sinking economy, corporate corruption and layoffs; and > > > Whereas, such military action is predicted actually to increase the > likelihood of retaliatory terrorist acts; and > > > Whereas, there is no convincing link between Iraq and Al Qaeda or the > attacks on Sept. 11, and neither the Bush administration nor the UN > inspections have demonstrated that Iraq poses a real threat to > Americans; and > > Whereas, U.S. military action against Iraq threatens the peaceful > resolution of disputes among states, jeopardizing the safety and > security of the entire world, including Americans; and > > > Whereas, labor has had an historic role in fighting for justice; > therefore > > > We hereby establish the "U.S. Labor Against the War' (USLAW)"; and > > Resolve that U.S. Labor Against the War stands firmly against Bush's war > drive; and > > Further resolve that U.S. Labor Against the War will publicize this > statement, and promote union, labor and community antiwar activity. > > > Adopted January 11, 2003 in Chicago, IL. > > JoAnn Wypijewski, a journalist in New York, is a member of the National > Writers Union/UAW 1981 and New York City Labor Against the War. She can > be reached at: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
