Open
World Conference of Workers
In Defense of Trade Union Independence & Democratic Rights
Why U.S. Unions Are Turning Against The War
From The Boston Globe Op-Ed Page, March 1, 2003
By Steve Early
When peace demonstrators staged mass rallies on both coasts last month,
there were new faces in the crowd and on the speakers' platform. For the
first time since the Bush Administration launched its "war on
terrorism," a significant number of protesters were union
members--reflecting growing labor concern about the pending U.S. invasion
of Iraq.
In a little-noted development, local, state, and national organizations
representing 13 million workers around the country have recently adopted
resolutions criticizing military intervention in the Middle East. Among
those challenging the White House are some of the largest affiliates of
AFL-CIO--including the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees, the Service Employees International Union, and Communications
Workers of America.
Locally, two AFL-CIO regional bodies--composed of unions in southeastern
Massachusetts and north of Boston--have joined the anti-war trend. After
lively internal debate, the Lynn-based North Shore Central Labor Council
declared that America's "real aim in this war is to control Iraq's
oil, increasing corporate profits at the expense of millions of working
people." Delegates urged that the billions of dollars now being
devoted to "armaments, domestic repression and bailouts" be
spent instead on "retraining and jobs for the 800,000 workers who
lost their jobs after September 11 and to plug the $50 billion deficit in
state and local budgets that has resulted in major cuts in essential
services."
Such labor criticism of foreign policy and domestic priorities was slow to
develop in the wake of 9/11. Like most Americans, trade unionists
responded to appeals for national unity after terrorists leveled the World
Trade Center towers eighteen months ago. Members of various New York City
unions performed crucial emergency work, during or after that disaster.
Many died and were hailed for their heroism.
Back then, most of organized labor had little to say about the resulting
government crackdown on immigrants and threats to civil liberties posed by
the USA Patriot Act. Few questioned U.S. military intervention in
Afghanistan, to pursue Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and some union leaders
seemed ready to lead the charge. "It's not simply justice we
seek," declared International Association of Machinists president Tom
Buffenbarger. "It is vengeance, pure and simple."
Union attitudes began to change when it became clear that there was going
to be a war on labor at home, as well as on enemies abroad. In the
immediate aftermath of 9/11, for example, President Bush sought little or
no aid for displaced workers as part of his airline industry bail-out
package. Next, the White House won Congressional approval for "fast
track" votes on future free trade deals that threaten manufacturing
jobs---while putting federal action on extended unemployment benefits on
the slow track. The President then persuaded Congress to create a Homeland
Security Department, staffed by 170,000 federal employees who won't have
normal union rights or civil service protection. According to Bush,
collective bargaining--by workers like the HSD's newly-hired airport
screeners--would interfere with the "war on terrorism."
Seeking additional "flexibility," the President now wants to
privatize 700,000 other federal jobs. In Washington, Bush has stacked the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) with appointees hostile to workers' rights.
Despite a $70 billion boost in military spending over the past two years,
he's offering little aid to state and local governments facing massive
cuts in their health care programs and other social services. Even workers
in New York City, who were exposed to toxic chemicals at "Ground
Zero," are having great difficulty getting the follow-up screening
and medical treatment they were originally promised.
Labor's challenge to these distorted priorities emerged from the
grassroots, not the union hierarchy. Local ad hoc committees around the
country began membership education and debate about the Bush military
build-up and its domestic consequences more than a year ago. As
Administration saber-rattling over Iraq escalated this winter, labor-based
peace campaigners met in Chicago to form U.S. Labor Against The War (USLAW),
which is now promoting union participation in the anti-war movement, here
and abroad. After much USLAW lobbying, the AFL-CIO executive council
declared on Feb. 27 that the president had failed to make the case
"for military action against Iraq at this time."
Not all of American labor agrees with this position, of course. Some
unions--like the Carpenters--have been heavily wooed by the White House
and Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa is still leading the
pro-administration "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq." If
and when the shooting starts, other trade unionists may be reluctant to
question government policy for fear of endangering troops in the field.
But most labor dissenters are likely to stick to their position that peace
is patriotic too. In the long run, the domestic fall-out of invading Iraq
will only make working class life in the U.S. increasingly
difficult--forcing more unions to become foreign policy critics, sooner or
later.
(Steve Early is a Boston-based International Representative for the
Communications Workers of America.)