ILWU West Coast Contract Negotiations:

ILWU West Coast Contract Negotiations:
Opportunity knocks once again but are the leaders of Organized labor willing to break with the past and turn what could be a victory in to yet another defeat.

Writing in the San Francisco Chronicle (Labor Solidarity vs. federal intervention SF Chronicle 7-23-02) Jack Heyman, an official with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union expresses concern that the Bush administration may intervene in the event of a strike by his union that represents some 11,000 West Coast dockers. Negotiations are stalled over the employers demand to eliminate jobs through the introduction of new technology.

This concern is not unwarranted, at the mere hint of a victory by organized labor (and I'm not referring to a defensive victory here; a smaller step backwards) the government, the media and the politicians of both political parties will come down decisively on the side of the employers. Heyman is correct, labor solidarity is the solution if a strike is to be won.

The dock workers union, particularly if it is joined by other unions and working class communities, has the power to bring the world's most powerful economy to its knees. As Heyman points out in his article, trade in West Coast ports amounts to 7%of the nation's GDP. But are the leadership of the AFL-CIO and the ILWU willing, or even capable of organizing the necessary solidarity to take on the Maritime employers? From Brother Heyman's article it appears not. He informs us that in order to break the "impasse", ILWU President, Jim Spinosa, has conceded to the employers' demand to eliminate jobs. Brother Heyman refers to this generous offer as "unprecedented". But it was not enough. Sensing weakness, the employers rejected the offer as "insufficient:" according to Heyman. So without a shot being fired in its war with the maritime employers, the ILWU leadership concedes to a major demand. No wonder the bosses feel confident; weakness invites aggression as they say.

Is this the way to build solidarity? The jobs being eliminated are primarily marine clerks positions who are not likely to be overjoyed at the thought; but they are also future job, jobs for our children. In return for such a generous concession the ILWU leadership "asked that all remaining jobs be ILWU", writes Heyman, who at no point in the article expresses disagreement at such a disastrous approach by the ILWU leadership. A point Brother Heyman could have made is that it is anything but "unprecedented" for the leaders of Organized Labor at the highest levels to be willing to trade good Union jobs in order to keep a dwindling dues base intact, it is standard procedure. It is their alternative to mobilizing the power of their members and confronting the employers head on.

Instead of capitulating on the question of jobs the ILWU leadership should raise the Union alternative; shorter hours and more jobs. By taking the issue of jobs in to working class communities, support for the Union can grow, solidarity can be built and strengthened. At present, Bush and big business are reeling from all the scandals that are being revealed. Now is the perfect time for the organizations of the workers to go onto the offensive. Of course, all of this would also require the ILWU leadership to committing itself to building a movement within the ranks of organized labor that would transform those unions. By fighting for positive gains, and by making clear that this is the start of a generalized offensive, a broader movement could be built--a movement that will be in a stronger position to defy back to work injunctions from the employers judicial friends.

The average trade unionist and working people in the communities in which we work understand that a genuine struggle with the employers will require sacrifice. They will not be willing to make those sacrifices for a program of concessions. Why should a low waged worker support the dock workers who are relatively well paid, when the union leaders meekly accept the elimination of those well paid jobs? To apply a well-used North American expression. Duh!!!!

Unless ILWU President Spinosa and the ILWU leadership reverses their capitulation on such an important issue as jobs, the battle is already lost. The employers recognize that the Union leadership have no intention of mobilizing their members and the rest of the labor movement to defend some of the best Union jobs in the country. The reason for this conciliatory approach is often wrongly thought by many rank and file unionists to be corruption or what is often expressed as being in bed with the boss. But while corruption and exorbitant living standards are a factor in determining the policies of the strategists of the labor movement, they are a secondary one. The reason the ILWU leadership repeat the same mistakes that have led to one defeat after another for Organized Labor is that, with the AFL-CIO leadership as a whole, they are advocates of the Team Concept, the view that employers and workers have the same interests, are on the same team. They have the same world view as the employer and mobilizing the power of their members against them conflicts with this world outlook.

Unfortunately, Brother Heyman, like many trade unionists who consider themselves to be dissidents or progressive fails to point this out. Within the labor movement it is common for left wing or more progressive officials and activists to obscure the role of the trade union leadership by forming this or that ad hoc committee or solidarity group, thereby substituting themselves for those that actually have the power to organize and mobilize thousands upon thousands of people. This does not mean that we should not form solidarity groups but it is a mistake to substitute them for those that have real power.

An ILWU Solidarity Committee has been formed that will no doubt continue down this well-worn and proven to fail path. A rally is already planned for Wednesday in San Francisco and naturally the top labor leaders will graciously appear. Militant speeches will be made about "drawing lines in the sand" and "staying out one day longer than it takes" and on and on. Meanwhile, the ILWU has made it clear that it will accept the employers eliminating jobs without lifting a finger to prevent it. That's not the best news for the unemployed if you ask me; when the state comes down on the ILWU we can't expect the unemployed to help out. Also speaking at the rally is Willie Brown, the corporate mayor of San Francisco who just forced concessions from city workers.

Brother Heyman is noted as an activist that organized solidarity actions for dockers in Liverpool and Australia; both these struggles were defeated. These struggles were defeated, not because organized labor is weak and the employers strong as the leaders of that movement would have us believe. They were not defeated because workers were unwilling to make sacrifices. The reason for these defeats like all the defeats we have suffered over the past period, lie squarely on the shoulders of the leaders of the AFL-CIO and their counterparts internationally. It is their policies, or lack of them, that are to blame. No strike can really be won without shutting down the employer at the point of production and a movement that can accomplish that cannot be built with a defensive strategy.

By failing to point this out, Brother Heyman and activists like him in the trade union movement suppress the development of a new and combative trade union leadership from the ranks. By obscuring the real cause of organized labor's defeats, Brother Heyman leaves the rank and file member with only one conclusion when we ask ourselves why we can't win. It must be the members, the union leaders are right. The employers are right. Defeat after defeat leaves members disillusioned and cautious.

The building of genuine rank and file caucuses in the Unions is a first step toward offering an alternative to the status quo in the labor movement. But any serious opposition within Organized Labor must be willing to reject the Team Concept and start from a position of demanding what working people need and not what is acceptable to the employers and their representatives in the Democratic Party. While the failed policies of the trade union leadership will inevitably be overcome, the price will be more painful defeats for organized labor and quite possibly a further decline in union membership.

Richard Mellor
member, AFSCME Local 444 Oakland CA