Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
ILWU West Coast Contract Negotiations:
Negotiations between the ILWU representing West Coast dockers and the maritime employers are stalling. Another opportunity looms for the leadership of a potentially powerful trade union to push the employers on to the defensive but will the ILWU and AFL-CIO leadership seize the time?
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
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
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Why not go for the oven?
I am pleased that anarchist acepts that the working class is capable of winning a bigger piece of the pie. However, the situation is such that most workers do not feel that they can even keep the piece of the pie we already have. I believe that it is through struggle we learn and draw certain conclusions about life. A victory over a larger piece of the pie will transform consciousness, will help to raise the issue of control of the pie itself. Most workers don't draw these conclusions from reading books. We learn it through our day to day struggle with the boss.
Why has the working class allowed its struggle to be divided up into tiny, impotent fragments? Where is class wide solidarity? Why does each union have to go it alone?
There is no reason why each union must go it alone, except for the role of the union leaders. They continue to try to convince a wing of the corporate heads as well as their politicians (the Democratic liberals - the few that remain) that they, the union leaders, are an important part of the team. These leaders are terrified that anything should make it more obvious that this is a complete fiction. This would include any mass movement of the rank and file. So these union leaders, including the heads of the ILWU, trot out their "friendly" politicians (such as Willie Brown) as well as other talking heads - the various union leaders in the area - who spout bold slogans, and who boast about how many thousand workers they represent. But where are all these thousands of workers? They have never been informed of the event, in the main, no less seriously encouraged to participate.
John Reimann
expelled member, Carpenters Local 713
John Reimann
expelled member, Carpenters Local 713
For more information:
http://Labor'sMilitantVoice.com
Well I certainly agree as a member of the ILWU that this is a tough struggle indeed,however Im a bit offended by those who are comparing the ILWU and its current leadership with the rest of the Business Unions in the US.We have a long, strong heritage of struggle against the Bosses and before it is over Im sure we will not only Fight-Back but Win!Also it is a sad but true fact that the Rank-n-File in most American Unions are also quite conservative and only interested in there own little worlds.Hopefully this struggle will produce more concious and militant workers on the waterfront to continue the fight.
In Solidarity, Jeff E. IBU-ILWU Seattle
In Solidarity, Jeff E. IBU-ILWU Seattle
What I say in my article is confirmed by Jeff E. He defends the leadership and attacks the members, they are conservative, they only care about their own worlds etc. It is not the members that worship the Willie Browns and the Al Gore's. Actually, Jeff's comments are insulting to the thousands upon thousands of workers from Hormel to Eastern to Greyhound who have fought the employers at great sacrifice to themselves only to have their efforts thwarted by the policies of the labor officials. In the case of Hormel they simply abandoned them to the employers outright.
Jeff says the ILWU will win. But Jeff must answer my point in the article. Is Brother Spinosa and the ILWU' leadership's willingness to give up union jobs a step toward victory? Is it the way a victory can be one. Am I imagining things or is the loss of jobs a defeat and not a victory. How is this a victory brother Jeff?
Jeff says the ILWU will win. But Jeff must answer my point in the article. Is Brother Spinosa and the ILWU' leadership's willingness to give up union jobs a step toward victory? Is it the way a victory can be one. Am I imagining things or is the loss of jobs a defeat and not a victory. How is this a victory brother Jeff?
For more information:
http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.com
Where has Jeff of Seattle been? Why doesn't he know the truth about the ILWU, especially the ILWU here in San Francisco? At the very least, he should know that the Democratic and Republican Parties are the twin parties of capitalism and thus no worker, much less labor union, has any business supporting either party or its politicians. There is more.
I refused to attend this rally featuring despicable Democrats Willie Brown and John Burton, at the edge of two non-union areas: (1) The Financial District, where the clerical workers and restaurant workers are mostly non-union and (2) Chinatown, where the restaurant workers and the garment workers are non-union. In fact, most jobs in San Francisco are non-union. Contrary to the lie stated at this rally by the worst mayor in San Francisco's history, Willie Brown, as heard by this writer on KPFA radio, 94.1 FM on the 6 p.m. evening news, San Francisco is not a union town. Most jobs in San Francisco are not union, and it is a direct result of the sellout policies of himself and his rotten party, the Democratic Party, that we are in this situation today of desperately trying to defend the advances of labor in the face of the fascist actions being perpetrated by the Democrats and Republicans together in Washington DC. That is to say, since the Reichstag Fire of September 11, 2001, the ruling class is promoting blood for oil wars abroad while it promotes fascism at home, and at the top of that fascist list is destruction of what remains of labor militancy, just like Nazi Germany.
The reason I refused to attend is that I will not appear at any rally that features Mr. Election Fraud, the fascist, anti-labor, anti-gay, anti-women, anti-tenant, anti-public power, organized crime, pro-tobacco, pro-gambling, real estate millionaire attorney whose career has benefited from the "whitening" of San Francisco, Willie Brown, and his lifelong Democratic Party fascist thug machine pal, John Burton. It was clear by the announcement that these two low-lifes would be present that the leadership of the ILWU considers them far more important than I, although I am a lifelong supporter of the ILWU, being a native San Franciscan, a lifelong socialist, and am a San Francisco voter, tenant and worker.
For those who are unaware of the horror that is Willie Brown, please read the election fraud website THOROUGHLY, at http://www.brasscheck.com/stadium
Please also read about the election fraud of Willie Brown, former California governor and now mayor of Oakland, Jerry Brown, and the rest of the Democratic Party in the 1970s, using the CIA front, the People's Temple, at:
http://www.brasscheck.com/jonestown
Please also read the book, available at the library, Willie Brown, A Biography, by James Richardson (1996: University of California Press).
Be sure to start at the beginning of the stadium website with the dedication to Dolores Evans and 5 children murdered by Willie Brown's election fraud team in a mysterious fire in their Housing Authority home on December 13, 1997, from which the fire inspector told the Examiner they could have escaped, but someone stopped them, just as Dolores Evans, a pollworker in the 49er Stadium Swindle election of June 3, 1997, was about to testify as to the election fraud she witnessed in that election in which we voted 70% No on the 49er Stadium Swindle and our vote was recorded as 50.2% "yes."
Willie Brown and his same election fraud team committed the same election fraud in his "re-election" in December 1999, and he now sits in office with 40% of the vote plus election fraud, and now only 20% support. He continues with his contempt for democracy by not only tampering with the Elections Department, but also with the Planning Commission and Board of Permit Appeals appointment process, where his appointees must be approved by our Board of Supervisors, who are elected by district, and thus more accountable to the voters than he, who was of course, selected by the Chamber of Commerce, a viciously anti-labor group.
Willie Brown has spent 6.5 years in office as mayor attacking tenants who are 2/3 of the residents of San Francisco and the overwhelming majority of the workingclass of San Francisco. He has also attacked the homeless, gay people, women, public power advocates, and anyone else who has a decent thought in their heads, regardless of color. This is all well-known to the people of San Francisco and his 20% support is now only from the rich landlord class and from his organized crime thugs.
What is the ILWU doing associating with this fascist? People are known by the company they keep. Those of you who are ILWU members and are as horrified as I am that Willie Brown and John Burton were invited must realize that we cannot work miracles when we defend labor while the bankrupt, corrupt, anti-labor ILWU officials continue to promote their favorite organized crime, election-frauding thug, good Democrat Willie Brown. We realize that his term and his political career end in December 2003, but that is no excuse. In fact, we are sick and tired of all the despicable, insulting excuses. There are lots of people like me who support labor but will never attend any rally featuring Willie Brown and/or John Burton.
There is a growing movement of independent political organizations, and it is long overdue that a Labor Party, independent of the fascist, anti-labor, election-frauding Democrat-Republicans, be a leading part of the movement. The Green Party is organized in 47 states plus Wash, D.C. I am not a Green Party member for all the reasons socialists are not, but this is a clear sign that there is a broad progressive movement in this country to finally dump the Democrat and Republican Parties into the dustbin of history. Labor must be part of that movement NOW.
I refused to attend this rally featuring despicable Democrats Willie Brown and John Burton, at the edge of two non-union areas: (1) The Financial District, where the clerical workers and restaurant workers are mostly non-union and (2) Chinatown, where the restaurant workers and the garment workers are non-union. In fact, most jobs in San Francisco are non-union. Contrary to the lie stated at this rally by the worst mayor in San Francisco's history, Willie Brown, as heard by this writer on KPFA radio, 94.1 FM on the 6 p.m. evening news, San Francisco is not a union town. Most jobs in San Francisco are not union, and it is a direct result of the sellout policies of himself and his rotten party, the Democratic Party, that we are in this situation today of desperately trying to defend the advances of labor in the face of the fascist actions being perpetrated by the Democrats and Republicans together in Washington DC. That is to say, since the Reichstag Fire of September 11, 2001, the ruling class is promoting blood for oil wars abroad while it promotes fascism at home, and at the top of that fascist list is destruction of what remains of labor militancy, just like Nazi Germany.
The reason I refused to attend is that I will not appear at any rally that features Mr. Election Fraud, the fascist, anti-labor, anti-gay, anti-women, anti-tenant, anti-public power, organized crime, pro-tobacco, pro-gambling, real estate millionaire attorney whose career has benefited from the "whitening" of San Francisco, Willie Brown, and his lifelong Democratic Party fascist thug machine pal, John Burton. It was clear by the announcement that these two low-lifes would be present that the leadership of the ILWU considers them far more important than I, although I am a lifelong supporter of the ILWU, being a native San Franciscan, a lifelong socialist, and am a San Francisco voter, tenant and worker.
For those who are unaware of the horror that is Willie Brown, please read the election fraud website THOROUGHLY, at http://www.brasscheck.com/stadium
Please also read about the election fraud of Willie Brown, former California governor and now mayor of Oakland, Jerry Brown, and the rest of the Democratic Party in the 1970s, using the CIA front, the People's Temple, at:
http://www.brasscheck.com/jonestown
Please also read the book, available at the library, Willie Brown, A Biography, by James Richardson (1996: University of California Press).
Be sure to start at the beginning of the stadium website with the dedication to Dolores Evans and 5 children murdered by Willie Brown's election fraud team in a mysterious fire in their Housing Authority home on December 13, 1997, from which the fire inspector told the Examiner they could have escaped, but someone stopped them, just as Dolores Evans, a pollworker in the 49er Stadium Swindle election of June 3, 1997, was about to testify as to the election fraud she witnessed in that election in which we voted 70% No on the 49er Stadium Swindle and our vote was recorded as 50.2% "yes."
Willie Brown and his same election fraud team committed the same election fraud in his "re-election" in December 1999, and he now sits in office with 40% of the vote plus election fraud, and now only 20% support. He continues with his contempt for democracy by not only tampering with the Elections Department, but also with the Planning Commission and Board of Permit Appeals appointment process, where his appointees must be approved by our Board of Supervisors, who are elected by district, and thus more accountable to the voters than he, who was of course, selected by the Chamber of Commerce, a viciously anti-labor group.
Willie Brown has spent 6.5 years in office as mayor attacking tenants who are 2/3 of the residents of San Francisco and the overwhelming majority of the workingclass of San Francisco. He has also attacked the homeless, gay people, women, public power advocates, and anyone else who has a decent thought in their heads, regardless of color. This is all well-known to the people of San Francisco and his 20% support is now only from the rich landlord class and from his organized crime thugs.
What is the ILWU doing associating with this fascist? People are known by the company they keep. Those of you who are ILWU members and are as horrified as I am that Willie Brown and John Burton were invited must realize that we cannot work miracles when we defend labor while the bankrupt, corrupt, anti-labor ILWU officials continue to promote their favorite organized crime, election-frauding thug, good Democrat Willie Brown. We realize that his term and his political career end in December 2003, but that is no excuse. In fact, we are sick and tired of all the despicable, insulting excuses. There are lots of people like me who support labor but will never attend any rally featuring Willie Brown and/or John Burton.
There is a growing movement of independent political organizations, and it is long overdue that a Labor Party, independent of the fascist, anti-labor, election-frauding Democrat-Republicans, be a leading part of the movement. The Green Party is organized in 47 states plus Wash, D.C. I am not a Green Party member for all the reasons socialists are not, but this is a clear sign that there is a broad progressive movement in this country to finally dump the Democrat and Republican Parties into the dustbin of history. Labor must be part of that movement NOW.
For more information:
http://www.brasscheck.com/stadium
Jeff from Seattle puts down US workers for being "only concerned with their own little world." Well, if you consider that their own "little world" consists of a struggle to pay the rent (or mortgage), pay the bills, figure out how to get a few spare hours to rest, relax, maybe spend some time with thekids... Well, this is a huge step ahead of the "big" world of the union leadership, including the "progressive" union leaders - who are more concerned with the big, important world of the corporate board rooms and the closed door rooms of the politicians where the real deals are made. How else to explain the presence of such politicians at the ILWU rallies? How else to explain that ILWU president Spinosa has agreed to give up jobs before even a single blow has been struck?
As for Jeff's being put off by my comparing the ILWU leadership with others -- yes, the ILWU has a proud history of the 1934 SF general strike. On the other hand, the Teamsters have a proud history of the Minneapolis general strike of that same year, the UAW has the history of the sit downs, even the carpenters union (my union for 30 years until I was expelled) has the history of being the founders of the 8 hour day struggle in the main. Most unions have some proud, militant traditions. But the point is that we can't rest on our past. Nor can we rest on the campaigns such as those for Mumia, for central American peasants, etc. The class struggle, like charity, starts at home.
John Reimann
As for Jeff's being put off by my comparing the ILWU leadership with others -- yes, the ILWU has a proud history of the 1934 SF general strike. On the other hand, the Teamsters have a proud history of the Minneapolis general strike of that same year, the UAW has the history of the sit downs, even the carpenters union (my union for 30 years until I was expelled) has the history of being the founders of the 8 hour day struggle in the main. Most unions have some proud, militant traditions. But the point is that we can't rest on our past. Nor can we rest on the campaigns such as those for Mumia, for central American peasants, etc. The class struggle, like charity, starts at home.
John Reimann
For more information:
http://LaborsMilitantVoice.com
Richard Mellor mentions the Liverpool defeat in passing and states:
"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."
Actually the story is a helluvalot more complicated. Those who "explain" the Liverpool defeat by pointing the finger at Bill Morris - who of course has plenty to answer for - ignore the fact that at every step of the way Morris did exactly what everyone expected him to do. That goes from Day 1.
If you want to know what happened, try
Dockers
and the post-mortem by rank and file dockers at
Reflecting on Liverpool.
Those who stepped out of line were people like the ILWU Local 10 activists, the IBU and supporters including IWW - and their counterparts internationally - who took risks to try to win the dispute e.g. with the rightly famous Neptune Jade actions. You can't imagine how people felt here in Liverpool when that happened.
I don't remember Richard Mellor. We all remember Local 10.
"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."
Actually the story is a helluvalot more complicated. Those who "explain" the Liverpool defeat by pointing the finger at Bill Morris - who of course has plenty to answer for - ignore the fact that at every step of the way Morris did exactly what everyone expected him to do. That goes from Day 1.
If you want to know what happened, try
Dockers
and the post-mortem by rank and file dockers at
Reflecting on Liverpool.
Those who stepped out of line were people like the ILWU Local 10 activists, the IBU and supporters including IWW - and their counterparts internationally - who took risks to try to win the dispute e.g. with the rightly famous Neptune Jade actions. You can't imagine how people felt here in Liverpool when that happened.
I don't remember Richard Mellor. We all remember Local 10.
It's good that Greg remembers the activists in Local 10, the IWW and any other elements that expressed solidarity with the Liverpool struggle. And I will take the time to read Greg's recommed pieces. But this is not a popularity contest. It's not even an issue of people's good intentions. The fact remains that these were defeated as has been practically every other labor/management conflict. Greg seems to be implying that it was understood what Morris would do and that was that. I do not believe it is that simple. A "hellavalot" more complicated than that I would say.
I have been involved in the labor moveemnt for 25 years. I have seen one ad hoc committee after another, one solidarity committee after another formed by one left group or progressive type after another in the labor movement. The rank and file committee against the two gate etc. etc. They never poinmted a finger at the role of the labor leadership. Never exposed their role, challenged their methods publicly among the members. And of course, the labor leaders love these committees, will come and speak at rally's as long as they don't have to organize them.
The labor leadership, who actually have the power to organize buld a movement refuse to do so and these ad hoc committees, formed mostly by people in left groups offer a left cover in most cases to the labor leadership who sell out our members at every opportunity.
I would like Greg to tell us if he thinks that the ILWU leadership capitulating on the issue of jobs is a good way to build solidarity. Respond to this Greg. A solidarity committee member told me that it was not but they would not publicly raise this. This is a mistake. A relatively weak subjective element trying to build solidarity when the leadership is refusing to do so without challenging this policy is a mistake, regardless of the intentions of those invoilved. It might make them feel god but that's not what it is about.
Richard
I have been involved in the labor moveemnt for 25 years. I have seen one ad hoc committee after another, one solidarity committee after another formed by one left group or progressive type after another in the labor movement. The rank and file committee against the two gate etc. etc. They never poinmted a finger at the role of the labor leadership. Never exposed their role, challenged their methods publicly among the members. And of course, the labor leaders love these committees, will come and speak at rally's as long as they don't have to organize them.
The labor leadership, who actually have the power to organize buld a movement refuse to do so and these ad hoc committees, formed mostly by people in left groups offer a left cover in most cases to the labor leadership who sell out our members at every opportunity.
I would like Greg to tell us if he thinks that the ILWU leadership capitulating on the issue of jobs is a good way to build solidarity. Respond to this Greg. A solidarity committee member told me that it was not but they would not publicly raise this. This is a mistake. A relatively weak subjective element trying to build solidarity when the leadership is refusing to do so without challenging this policy is a mistake, regardless of the intentions of those invoilved. It might make them feel god but that's not what it is about.
Richard
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$110.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network