Open
World Conference of Workers
In Defense of Trade Union Independence & Democratic Rights
USLAW Assembly Reflections/Additional Reports
1)
Reflections on USLAW's National Labor Assembly for Peace (October 24-25)
-- by Jerry Gordon (veteran antiwar and labor activist in Cleveland, Ohio)
2) Why Is
Labor Against the War? -- Joslyn Williams, President, Metro Washington
Council, AFL-CIO (presentation to October 25 evening rally in Chicago at
USLAW National Labor Assembly for Peace)
3)
Unionists Condemn U.S. Repression of Iraqi Unions -- by Mark Gruenberg
(reprinted, with permission, from Workday Minnesota, a midwestern
labor paper)
******************
1) Reflections on USLAW's National Labor Assembly for Peace
By Jerry Gordon
The National Labor Assembly for Peace, organized by United States
Labor Against the War (USLAW) and held in Chicago October 24-25, 2003,
was, in the opinion of this participant, a remarkable success, due both to
the program of the conference and the manner in which it was conducted.
The Assembly was convened to transform USLAW into an ongoing labor antiwar
coalition, and that is what it did.
USLAW was born in the fight to prevent the threatened U.S. war against
Iraq. Following the invasion, USLAW moved immediately to oppose the
occupation. It has also been spearheading a solidarity campaign in support
of Iraqi workers. The October conference left no doubt that Iraq will
continue to be in the forefront of USLAW's work, at least in the period
ahead.
In the aftermath of the conventional phase of the war, there was a
widespread tendency among many peace activists to move on to other peace
and justice issues. This was graphically demonstrated at the June
conference of United for Peace and Justice when the 500 attendees were
asked to prioritize their concerns. Ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq
ranked no higher than ninth.
While there are hot spots all over the world resulting from the
expansionist and aggressive empire building policies pursued by the U.S.
government, there is no question but that Iraq, at this juncture, is at
the very center of world politics. It is here that the vulnerability of
the vaunted U.S. military machine, the most powerful in the history of the
world, is being exposed. Iraq has become a killing ground for U.S.
military forces and the government is powerless to prevent it. The Iraqi
resistance is everywhere and it is inflicting terrible damage on the
occupiers. U.S. public opinion is turning steadily against the war and the
occupation, and the Bush administration finds itself trapped in a
nightmare of its own making. It has pledged to continue the occupation,
but the cost of staying in Iraq is becoming increasingly intolerable. And
the more that the U.S. public sours on the Iraq fiasco, the harder it will
be for the U.S. to win support for future wars of invasion and conquest.
Iraq has become the warmakers' Achilles heel.
In view of this, it was eminently correct for the delegates to the
Assembly (by a 91-70 vote) to reject the proposal to change USLAW's name
to "U.S. Labor United for Peace, Jobs, Justice and Prosperity."
While the projected change of name would not necessarily have resulted in
a change of orientation toward a more generalized peace and justice
formation, it would have sent the wrong message, obscuring USLAW's primary
focus on Iraq.
At the same time, as the Assembly made clear, opposing "the" war
does not mean just the war on Iraq but also the administration's permanent
war strategy and the war on workers at home.
Iraqi Labor Rights Campaign
A touchstone of USLAW's work is and has been developing solidarity
with the emerging Iraqi trade union movement. This campaign has enormous
possibilities and warrants all the attention the Assembly gave it -- and
more.
One of the best received speakers at the Assembly was Clarence Thomas,
Executive Board member and former Secretary-Treasurer of International
Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 10, based in the San Francisco
Bay Area. Brother Thomas was one of a five-member USLAW delegation which
visited Iraq for a week. He reported that in 1987 Saddam Hussein issued a
decree making public sector unions illegal and banning strikes. This
decree remains on the books, unchanged by potentate Bremer or the puppet
Iraqi Governing Council. Moreover, it was the occupation authority, under
Bremer, which issued a Draconian edict on June 16 prohibiting strikes and
threatening that any worker who encourages strike activity will be held as
a prisoner of war.
As part of its Iraqi Labor Rights Campaign, USLAW has published a
"Profile Of U.S. Corporations Awarded Contracts in
U.S./British-Occupied Iraq." This report, in the words of its
Executive Summary, "profiles eighteen of the most prominent U.S.
corporations to which the Bush administration has given large, highly
profitable contracts to operate in Iraq." The document declares that
"U.S. Labor Against the War will enthusiastically support a campaign
to secure for Iraqi workers the labor rights necessary for a decent and
dignified existence and as the foundation for a truly democratic
society." Toward this end, it is working with the International
Liaison Committee (ILC), which is rendering considerable support for the
campaign. A representative of the ILC, Daniel Gluckstein, was among the
speakers at the Assembly.
There are at least three major reasons why USLAW's Iraqi Labor Rights
Campaign is so important. The first is that it fulfills a basic
responsibility that workers in an imperialist country have toward workers
of a conquered country living under colonial occupation.
Second, it exposes the sham and hypocrisy of the claim that the U.S. war
against Iraq was waged to bring democracy and justice to the people of
that nation. It lays bare the fact that the standards of the UN's
International Labor Organization (ILO), which set forth basic rights of
workers and their unions, are being flouted by the occupying authorities.
Third, it provides an opening to bring the issue of the occupation of Iraq
to the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO has many times declared its readiness to
assist unions around the world struggling for basic rights. Many U.S.
trade unionists contend that the federation has sometimes abused this
mission by intervening in support of company unions working in concert
with the bosses, a case in point being the recent assistance extended by
the AFL-CIO to the misleaders of Venezuela's oil union. Be that as it may,
Iraq presents an opportunity to get it right by coming to the aid of
Iraq's beleaguered workers, whose rights are being flagrantly abused.
The War at Home
The astronomical cost to the U.S. population of the Iraqi and
Afghanistan wars and occupations was driven home at the Assembly by
frequent references to the $87 billion appropriation request submitted to
Congress [and subsequent to the Assembly approved by Congress]. This at a
time when unemployment exceeds well over nine million, the cost of health
care is spiraling, schools are starving for needed funds, tuition for
higher education continues to soar, the U.S. infrastructure is crumbling,
homelessness is sharply increasing, cities and states face critical
budgetary deficits resulting in layoffs and cutbacks in essential
services, and environmental protections are further eroding. All of these
problems are taking a terrific toll, especially on communities of color.
For years the government has attempted to justify its unwillingness to
address these problems on the ground that the money is just not there --
even as gigantic tax cuts are enacted for the super rich. Then along comes
Iraq and the sky is the limit for funding the destruction of much of that
country and then awarding bid-free lucrative contracts for reconstructing
it.
From its inception, USLAW has sought to draw the connection between the
war abroad and the war at home. From day one, its leadership has
understood that key to winning the U.S. working class to the antiwar cause
is helping workers understand that spending for war and militarization
undermines their living standards and drains dollars away from urgently
needed social programs.
This USLAW message resonates much more forcefully than was the case for
the Vietnam antiwar movement. The question of guns or butter was also
posed then but lacked the traction it has today. The reason is that vast
changes have taken place in the economy since Vietnam. Johnson, for
example, in prosecuting the Vietnam war, funded the burgeoning military
expenditures and also his "Great Society" program by a string of
budget deficits, including raiding the social security trust fund. But
this was easier to do then because in Johnson's era the U.S. was the
world's largest creditor nation. Now, with indebted private, household,
corporate and government sectors, the U.S. is the world's largest debtor
economy. [Note: The nation's debt today exceeds $6.8 trillion and is
increasing at an astounding $1.58 billion a day.] Bush lacks the
advantages U.S. presidents had when waging the Vietnam war. By expanding
the government's ballooning deficits in order to implement his preemptive
war strategy, he risks collapse of the dollar. Add to this the costs of a
still sinking economy (despite the latest surge) and it's obvious that the
crisis confronting the government could soon reach catastrophic
proportions. With public opposition to the war also rising, it is no
wonder that much of the Big Business media is expressing growing anxiety
over the direction of U.S. foreign policy.
Non-Partisan and Non-Electoral
At a time when the U.S. labor movement is making the defeat of George
Bush in the 2004 election its overriding objective, USLAW was under
tremendous pressure to get on board in terms of its own program and
perspective. Here, USLAW made an unfortunate accommodation by inserting in
the Call to the Assembly the following language: "Bush's defeat in
the 2004 election is of paramount urgency." To be sure, this
statement was followed by one cautioning, "However, in seeking his
defeat, we must assure the defeat of the policies he has promoted so that
no matter who is elected, it will be politically impossible to pursue
them." But the partisan note that had been struck was not negated by
the words which came after.
The issue here is not whether anyone disagrees with the menace posed by
the Bush administration to the working class and to people around the
world. Rather, it is whether to rely on Democratic Party politicians to
deliver us from that menace. There is no way to interpret the statement
that Bush's defeat in 2004 is of "paramount urgency" other than
as a call to elect the Democratic nominee for president -- whoever that
may be -- because realistically, at this point, electing that
individual is the only way to defeat Bush. If there were a mass labor
party in the field running on an antiwar program, the statement might have
been appropriate. In absence of such a party, the statement feeds
illusions that the election of a Democratic administration will bring
peace, an end to occupations, and a fundamental change in U.S. foreign
policy, none of which is supported by the record of past Democratic
administrations.
When the proposed Mission Statement was issued, it was reassuring to see
that it contained no reference similar to the one objected to in the Call.
Yet delegates still objected to the fact that Bush's name was cited three
times in the Mission Statement with nothing in that Statement holding the
Democrats accountable for their complicity in launching the war against
Iraq. As a result of a number of comments from the floor, the Statement
was revised, limiting the personal references to Bush and clarifying who
bore responsibility for the war by declaring, "The foreign policy of
the Bush Administration, with the consent of Congress, is based on
military aggression, and the threat of force." (Emphasis added) This
rewrite satisfied the delegates and the Mission Statement was
overwhelmingly approved.
[Incidentally, the manner in which the Mission Statement was changed --
with delegates encouraged to propose amendments from the floor which were
duly voted upon -- is testament to the high level of participation and
democratic decision-making at the Assembly. Delegates had a meaningful
voice and they were heard.]
When it comes to electoral politics and the need to build an antiwar
movement which unites people from different political parties while
remaining independent of all of them, it is perhaps instructive to recall
the Vietnam-era experience of the National Peace Action Coalition (NPAC).
In 1972 NPAC was the main center nationally of the antiwar movement. It
had been formed two years previously as a nonpartisan coalition with a
policy barring electoral involvement. That policy was challenged by
supporters of George McGovern who argued that NPAC should defer
demonstrations until after the 1972 presidential election and concentrate
on encouraging its followers to ring doorbells for their candidate in
order to defeat Nixon. The issue was referred to NPAC's July 1972
convention in Los Angeles. After full discussion and debate, the nearly
1,000 activists present voted overwhelmingly to maintain the coalition's
non-partisan stance. NPAC resolved to continue building demonstrations in
the streets before, during and after the November election. The rest, as
they say, is history. Despite the unpopularity of the Vietnam war and the
Watergate scandal which was unraveling the presidency, Nixon crushed
McGovern in the election, winning every state except Massachusetts.
In the current situation, at a time when USLAW stands squarely for an
immediate end to the occupation of Iraq, all of the leading contenders for
the Democratic Party presidential nomination call for continuing the
occupation, in fact some of them urge sending in additional U.S. troops.
So how could USLAW, consistent with its program, give any consideration
whatever to throwing its support to the Democrats?
USLAW and the AFL-CIO
Thanks to the work done prior to and at the Assembly itself, USLAW has
positioned itself to win increasing support for its policies and programs
from the labor movement. Its prospects are much brighter than those which
faced antiwar trade unionists in the early period of the Vietnam war.
During the Vietnam years, the top leadership of the U.S. labor movement
was lined up solidly behind the war. AFL-CIO president George Meany
dismissed out of hand the argument that the U.S. labor movement had no
business supporting a war to prop up a military dictatorship 8,000 miles
from home. On May 3, 1965, he told the AFL-CIO Building and Construction
Trades Department, "It is up to all of us, on affairs outside of this
nation, to have one policy. We can disagree in here, but we cannot
disagree outside the boundaries of the nation, and have an effective
foreign policy. So I urge you in your own communities to follow the
AFL-CIO position, to back up the commander-in-chief."
Fast forward to this year. Prior to the outbreak of war against Iraq, the
AFL-CIO Executive Council did take a position calling for alternatives to
using military force, which it said should only be employed as a last
resort. But when the invasion was launched, that position yielded to one
calling for support for the troops, the war and the commander-in-chief.
Shades of Meany.
Nonetheless, opposition to the war and occupation runs much deeper among
U.S. workers today than was true after a comparable period of the Vietnam
war. And the domestic consequences are far more apparent.
By virtue of its solid work, USLAW has positioned itself to get a hearing
within the AFL-CIO and the labor movement as a whole. The carefully chosen
language in USLAW's Mission Statement, the Iraqi Labor Rights Campaign,
the effective linking of the war abroad to the war at home, and the policy
of reaching out to labor leaders at all levels while at the same time
making it possible for rank-and-file trade unionists to participate, have
all helped USLAW lay the foundations for significant growth and
development. At the same time, USLAW's program and the non-sectarian
manner in which it functions to win support for that program make it
difficult for any trade union supporters of current U.S. foreign policies
to marginalize it.
The emergence of USLAW is a truly historic development, one that deserves
the active support of all concerned trade unionists. The need today is to
build USLAW in every way possible, for it is the most promising vehicle on
the scene for involving large numbers of workers in this country in the
ongoing fight for peace, justice and the defense of labor's rights
throughout the world.
******************
2)WHY IS LABOR AGAINST THE WAR?
Joslyn N. Williams, President
Metro Washington Council, AFL-CIO
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, OCTOBER 26, 2003
SOME MAY ASK AND MANY MORE WILL WONDER, WHY IS LABOR AGAINST THE WAR?
BUT THE QUESTION ISN'T WHY WE'RE AGAINST THE WAR, RATHER, IT'S WHY
WOULDN'T WE BE AGAINST THE WAR?
THE WAR IS NOT JUST IN IRAQ AND IT'S NOT JUST IN AFGHANISTAN, IT'S IN MY
HOMETOWN AND YOURS. THE WAR IS IN WASHINGTON, IT'S IN NEW YORK AND
CHICAGO, IN LOS ANGELES AND DES MOINES. THE WAR IS IN YOUR CITY, YOUR
TOWN, YOUR COMMUNITY AND IT'S A WAR ON YOU AND ME.
WHY WOULDN'T LABOR BE AGAINST THE WAR ON AMERICANS WHO ARE OUT OF WORK,
AMERICANS WHO ARE POOR, AMERICANS WHO DON'T HAVE HEALTH CARE OR ACCESS TO
A GOOD EDUCATION?
WHY WOULDN'T LABOR BE AGAINST THE WAR ON AMERICANS WHO ARE HOMELESS OR
SICK AND AMERICANS WHO DARE TO DISSENT, AMERICANS WHO ARE PATRIOTIC ENOUGH
TO BELIEVE THAT WE CAN AND DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
WHY WOULDN'T LABOR BE AGAINST THE WAR ON WORKING PEOPLE HARASSED,
INTIMIDATED AND FIRED FOR DARING TO SPEAK UP FOR A VOICE AT WORK?
WHY IS LABOR AGAINST THE WAR? HERE'S AT LEAST 87 BILLION REASONS WHY:
THAT'S HOW MANY AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS ARE BEING SIPHONED OFF INTO THE
PRIVATE POCKETS OF THE HALLIBURTONS OF THE WORLD WHILE YOUR HOMETOWN
STRUGGLES TO PAY WORKERS, TO PAVE THE STREETS, AND TO KEEP OUR SCHOOLS AND
HOSPITALS OPEN. OUR KIDS CAN'T SEE A DOCTOR AND THEIR PARENTS STRUGGLE TO
STAY OFF WELFARE.
WHY IS LABOR AGAINST THE WAR? HERE'S 70,000 REASONS WHY: THAT'S AT LEAST
HOW MANY GROCERY STORE WORKERS WERE FORCED OUT ON STRIKE IN RECENT WEEKS
TO KEEP AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE. WAL-RAT – I MEAN WAL-MART, ALREADY THE
NATION'S BIGGEST EMPLOYER, IS NOW THE NATION'S BIGGEST GROCERY STORE, AND
THEY'RE DRIVING HEALTH CARE BENEFITS TO THE BOTTOM JUST AS THEY HAVE
DRIVEN DOWN WAGES IN AMERICA. THE GROCERY STORE WORKERS STRIKING WITH THE
UFCW ARE FRONT-LINE SOLDIERS IN CORPORATE AMERICA'S WAR ON AMERICAN
WORKERS AND THEY'VE TAKEN A STAND FOR ALL AMERICAN WORKING FAMILIES WHO
ARE BEING SQUEEZED BEYOND THEIR LIMITS BY OUR BROKEN AND INADEQUATE HEALTH
CARE SYSTEM. WAL-MART MAY BE THE BIGGEST, BUT IT'S NOT THE ONLY COMPANY IN
AMERICA LEECHING OFF COMMUNITIES, FORCING TAXPAYERS AND WORKERS TO PICK UP
HEALTH CARE COSTS AND DOING TREMENDOUS DAMAGE AS IT DRIVES OTHER COMPANIES
TO DO THE SAME.
WHY IS LABOR AGAINST THE WAR? HERE'S 42 MILLION REASONS WHY. THAT'S HOW
MANY AMERICANS WOULD JOIN A UNION TODAY IF THEIR BOSSES DIDN'T HARASS THEM
WHEN THEY SPEAK UP AT WORK, INTIMIDATE THEM WHEN THEY DEMAND A VOICE ON
THE JOB, AND FIRE THEM WHEN THEY TALK UNION.
WHY IS LABOR AGAINST THE WAR? HERE'S THREE MILLION REASONS WHY. THAT'S HOW
MANY MORE AMERICANS ARE LIVING IN POVERTY NOW THAN THERE WERE JUST TWO
YEARS AGO. WHILE THE RANKS OF THE NATION'S POOR ARE GROWING AND AMERICAN
PAYCHECKS HAVE SHRUNK FOR THREE STRAIGHT YEARS, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
CONTINUES TO PANDER TO THE WEALTHY THROUGH MILLIONAIRE TAX CUTS.
MEANWHILE, THEY WANT TO STRIP OVERTIME PROTECTIONS FROM MILLIONS OF
WORKERS, THREATENING TO REDUCE HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR WORKING FAMILIES EVEN
FURTHER.
WHY IS LABOR AGAINST THE WAR? BECAUSE ORDINARY IRAQI CITIZENS AND WORKERS
ARE NOT OUR ENEMY BUT WITH EVERY BULLET AMERICAN SOLDIERS FIRE IN THAT
COUNTRY GEORGE BUSH MAKES ANOTHER IMPLACABLE ENEMY FOR OUR COUNTRY.
BECAUSE THERE CAN BE NO FREEDOM IN IRAQ IF THERE IS NO FREEDOM AT HOME.
BECAUSE IN MY HOMETOWN, WASHINGTON, DC, WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE
FOR REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS. BECAUSE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS VOTE WITH
THEIR FEET EVERY ELECTION AND STAY HOME BECAUSE THEY'RE DISGUSTED WITH THE
SHAM OUR DEMOCRACY HAS BECOME.
WHY IS LABOR AGAINST THE WAR? BECAUSE THE WAR IS AGAINST WORKING PEOPLE
AROUND THE WORLD. BROTHERS AND SISTERS, WORKING PEOPLE ARE AGAINST THE WAR
BECAUSE THE WAR IS AGAINST US!
WE HAVE COME TOGETHER HERE IN CHICAGO AND ADOPTED A SET OF PRINCIPLES THAT
SAY WE ARE COMMITTED "TO PROTECT OUR MEMBERS AND THE LIVES AND
LIVELIHOODS OF WORKING PEOPLE EVERYWHERE," AND THAT "WE WILL
ADVOCATE, EDUCATION AND MOBILIZE IN THE US LABOR MOVEMENT FOR A JUST
FOREIGN POLICY, AN END TO US OCCUPATION OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES, REDIRECTING
THE NATION'S RESOURCES, SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS AND THEIR FAMILIES BY
BRINGING THE TROOPS HOME; PROTECTING WORKER'S RIGHTS, CIVIL RIGHTS, CIVIL
LIBERTIES AND THE RIGHTS OF IMMIGRANTS; SOLIDARITY WITH WORKERS AND THEIR
ORGANIZATIONS AROUND THE WORLD."
U.S. LABOR, BROTHERS AND SISTERS, IS FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE. PEACE STARTS
AT HOME; PEACE STARTS WHEN WE MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND WE MAKE A DIFFERENCE
EVERY DAY WHEN WE GO TO WORK; WE MAKE A DIFFERENCE WHEN WE SAY THAT WE DO
NOT SUPPORT THIS WAR, NOT THE ONE AT HOME AND NOT THE ONE AGAINST IRAQ.
JUSTICE BEGINS WHEN WE ORGANIZE IN OUR COMMUNITIES; JUSTICE BEGINS WHEN WE
MOBILIZE OUR FRIENDS AND OUR NEIGHBORS, NOT JUST IN THE LABOR MOVEMENT,
BUT IN THE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY, IN THE SCHOOLS, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND
COMMUNITY GROUPS. GO HOME, BROTHERS AND SISTERS; GO HOME AND ORGANIZE FOR
PEACE, GO HOME AND MOBILIZE FOR JUSTICE!
******************
3) Unionists Condemn U.S. Repression of Iraqi Unions
(reprinted from Workday Minnesota, a midwestern labor paper)
By Mark Gruenberg - November 2, 2003
CHICAGO -- The U.S.-named Coalition Provisional Authority that now runs
Iraq will not change Iraqi labor law -- which severely curtails unions --
for at least two years and, on Oct. 16, banned strikes, say two U.S.
unionists who traveled there.
Freelance writer David Bacon, a Newspaper Guild member, and former
International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 10 Secretary-Treasurer
Clarence Thomas, of California, said those decisions left most Iraqi
workers without union representation and unable to strike.
That's because Iraqi labor law bans unions in state-run companies, a large
share of the pre-war economy, they said.
Bacon and Thomas discussed their six-day mid-October trip, mostly in
Baghdad but also to the al-Dawra oil refinery, in a telephone interview
before reporting on it to an Oct. 24-25 conference of U.S. Labor Against
the War, held in Chicago.
The conference occurred on the same weekend that at least 50,000
protesters, including some unionists -- such as those from Hospital and
Health Care Workers Local 1199 in New York -- marched in Washington,
demanding withdrawal of U.S. troops, and repeal of the Patriot Act, among
other causes.
"We saw no physical evidence of reconstitution in Iraq and we did not
see people working," Thomas said. Bacon estimated Iraqi unemployment
at 70 percent.
Thomas said their data came from "several labor organizations,
including the Workers' Democratic Trade Union Movement, which took a
significant role in opposing the bloody repression of Saddam's
regime," and the new Union of the Unemployed.
The "old guard" of the Iraqi labor movement "was forced
underground" during Saddam Hussein's rule, he said. "They
resurfaced and are putting into place an organized structure for all
places where workers are employed."
Bacon said the new Iraqi assistant labor minister told them of the strike
ban and that Hussein's previous labor laws would stay intact for at least
two years.
He added that "already low wages have been frozen" and
profit-sharing and bonuses were eliminated. Thomas said the refinery's
workers earn $60 a month.
A detailed e-mail question to the coalition authority, for comment and
confirmation of their statements, was not answered.
But an Ann Arbor, Mich.-based group of Iraqis in the U.S. protested, in an
Aug. 7 letter to President Bush, against plans to privatize Iraqi state
enterprises "by any party which is not a legitimate, sovereign,
democratically elected government" in Iraq. That confirms authority
plans to sell off state-run firms.
And on June 6, the authority issued a public notice in English and Arabic,
saying it "respects Iraqi laws."
"This extends to Iraqi labor laws prescribing the conditions under
which employees of government instrumentalities and enterprises continue
to work," the notice added.
Those are the laws, the two U.S. unionists said, that ban unions from
government-owned firms.
"The form of industrial and labor relations ultimately will be a
matter for the Iraqi people and the future Iraqi government to
decide," the authority's notice concluded.
The Chicago meeting drew approximately 200 delegates who said they
represent several million unionists, said co-chairs Gene Bruskin and
Robert Muhlenkamp.
Teamsters Local 705 -- the union's second-largest local and an early foe
of the war -- hosted the Chicago conference. Delegates voted to protest
the war and to campaign against George W. Bush's domestic agenda, said
Local 705 President Jerry Zero.
"The war is not just in Iraq and not just in Afghanistan, it's in my
hometown and yours," Washington, D.C., Central Labor Council
President Jocelyn N. Williams told the Chicago conference in closing
remarks.
"Why wouldn't labor be against the war on Americans who are out of
work, who are poor, who don't have access to health care or to good
education? Why wouldn't labor be against the war on working people (who
are) harassed, intimidated and fired for daring to speak up for a voice at
work?" Williams challenged.
"Our goal is build a national organization coalition for labor and
human rights in Iraq, and to support the movement to end the war,"
Bruskin, Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO Food and Allied Service Trades
Department, said.
"It's also to prevent future pre-emptive wars and to educate people
about links between the wars and domestic policies."
-----
Mark Gruenberg writes for Press Associates, Inc., news service. Used by
permission.