|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
AFL-CIO censures political director for personally supporting Ralph Nader |
Current rating: 0 |
by Sascha D. Meinrath
Email: meinrath (nospam) urbana.indymedia.org (unverified!) |
18 Jan 2001
|
|
Wednesday evening the Executive Board of the Champaign County AFL-CIO, in response to a complaint lodged by a fellow AFL-CIO member, decided to censure Dave Johnson, Political Director and Vice President of the Champaign County AFL-CIO, for publicly supporting the Green Party during the 2000 presidential election. |
A House Divided? AFL-CIO censures political director for personally supporting Ralph Nader
by Sascha D. Meinrath -- Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center (IMC)
January 18, 2001 (Champaign, Illinois)
At 10:00 p.m. Wednesday evening, after five hours of deliberations, the Executive Board of the Champaign County AFL-CIO, in response to a complaint lodged by a fellow AFL-CIO member, decided to censure Dave Johnson, Political Director and Vice President of the Champaign County AFL-CIO, for publicly supporting the Green Party during the 2000 presidential election.
\"The Executive Board of the Champaign County AFL-CIO, by unanimous action has found Brother Dave Johnson in violation of its constitution and bylaws. It is the decision of the Executive Board to censure Brother Johnson for engaging in activities contrary to the best interest of the Central Labor Council.\"
Mr. Johnson, a member of Champaign Carpenters Local 44, reached at his home for comment, said that the \'activities contrary to the best interest of the Central Labor Council\' he was found guilty of were \"open to interpretation\" and that no explicit guidelines existed to the best of his knowledge.
Over 50 concerned union and community members showed up to observe the trial before the Executive Board. However, the Board decided, in a meeting held while people were waiting for the trial to start, to move the proceeding to a closed-door session and not allow the general public or press to observe the proceedings.
Mike Klein, Illinois State Director of the AFL-CIO, made the announcement to those gathered to observe the trial, \"It\'s an internal matter; a private matter. Corporate America doesn\'t open its doors to anyone who wants to walk in…The [AFL-CIO] Board is not compelled to open it up to everyone and they chose not to.\" Two AFL-CIO Illinois Central Labor Council Delegates were allowed in as observers, Doug Baker, of the Carpenters Local 44, and a Stagehand Union member, Jeff Reeder. However, other delegates stated they were turned away because they \"could not prove they were official delegates\" and because the room where the trial was held was already \"over-full.\" One Carpenters Local 44 member described the entire process as a \"kangaroo court.\"
Labor organizer Peter Miller summed up the trial as a question of \"whether or not [Mr. Johnson] was justified in making his statements in support of Ralph Nader even though he\'s an elected representative of the Central Labor Body of Champaign County.\"
The overwhelming majority of public observers thought this was a clear case of an individual\'s First Amendment right to political free speech. Eric Seizmore, a witness called before the tribunal stated, \"I felt I needed to support free speech and let people know that [Mr. Johnson] made it abundantly clear that the AFL-CIO was not backing Nader and was not endorsing Nader, but that he personally, as an individual choice, was deciding to support [Nader].\" The Executive Board disagreed, concluding that Mr. Johnson had violated his oath of office as Vice President and Political Director of the Champaign AFL-CIO.
Mike Griffin, a labor activist and Co-Director of the Warzone Education Foundation, an organization whose mission is to fight for union democracy, defended Mr. Johnson, stating, \"Dave did absolutely nothing wrong. These charges have malicious intent. And smacks of the old AFL-CIO business unionism to control the voice of its members.\"
The Champaign County Executive Board of the AFL-CIO and the charging party, Mr. Steve Brewer, the Business Agent for Plumbers Union 149 in Savoy, Illinois, refused to comment on the proceedings. Mr. Klein, however, agreed to be interviewed. Witnesses called before the tribunal described Mr. Klein as \"aggressive,\" \"biased,\" and \"bulldog-like.\" Mr. Klein responded equivocally, \"Well, that\'s their opinion, they have a right to it, that\'s what democracy is all about.\" He stated that it was his official role and responsibility \"to see that the hearing procedures were consistent with the [AFL-CIO] rules and the constitution, keep decorum and fair play, [and] see that the hearing was fairly conducted, honestly conducted and that all sides were free to make a full and aggressive defense of their positions.\"
Mr. Klein emphasized that the participants were not divided over free speech rights, \"There\'s no question here, everyone in the room agrees with the individual\'s right to free speech, and to publicly dissent as an individual. The question becomes how much leeway do they give someone to carry out his or her duties [as an AFL-CIO official].\"
Jude Redwood, Mr. Johnson\'s council during the trial, interpreted the proceedings somewhat differently, \"All of the witnesses and even the charging party felt very strongly that they did have a right to personal opinions under the First Amendment, yet these charges are exactly in opposition to the First Amendment.\" Mr. Johnson added that \"the government does not have the right to go into your bedroom and neither does the union.\"
Mr. Griffin was more questioning of the proceedings, \"I think that union democracy was on trial. I think the First Amendment was on trial.\"
Ms. Redwood stated, \"The charges against Mr. Johnson were that he spoke and was quoted in the newspaper as a union official, and that the things that he said were against the official stance of the union politically.\" She further stated that the oath of office Mr. Johnson was found guilty of violating is \"to support the views of his union in union business\" and that Mr. Johnson \"has taken the oath and has upheld his oath.\"
Several witnesses stated that the proceedings often seemed to put Ralph Nader on trial. They complained that Mr. Klein spent time discussing Mr. Nader\'s shortcomings and asking witnesses to defend him. Mr. Johnson concurred and questioned the relevance of the issue.
Mr. Griffin felt the purpose of the trial was to silence dissenting political voice among rank and file union members. \"I think this trial was an exercise in authority [the AFL-CIO doesn\'t] really have. They feel like they\'ve got to have a pound of flesh is they\'re going to keep control of the political arena and what their officers and members do and say. This probably does not represent the only case in America where someone is being hammered by top-down control of the AFL-CIO for speaking out politically.\"
Mr. Griffin went on to say that Mr. Johnson has \"received support from all over the world\" and that thousands of people across this country have voiced their support for his rights. Mr. Griffin summed up his fear about the trial of Mr. Johnson, \"If they continue this course they will turn [the union] into nothing more than a fascist organization that most of us would hate anyway.\"
However, Mr. Klein stated that censure was the least harmful decision the Executive Board could have reached, \"There was a strong will initially for much more severe actions…There was a strong will of the majority to remove him from his office, period; to expel him from the Central Labor Council -- from the Executive Board and as an officer.\"
Mr. Klein summed up the debate, \"You get in conflicts at times about this principle of free speech which you can argue is a constitutional thing on the one hand [or] an oath of office that requires one to carry out [ones duties] in accordance with established rules and guidelines.\"
In discussing why Mr. Johnson was brought up on charges, Mr. Klein blamed the media, \"The news media is culpable here. They refused to cooperate and write [Mr. Johnson\'s] disclaimers. They refused to come here tonight, although they were asked to be a witness.\" When asked why Mr. Johnson was brought before the tribunal, Mr. Klein reiterated that it was \"not his speaking that got him in trouble but the newspaper reporter who failed to think it was important enough to protect the integrity of Dave Johnson as an individual…And whether it\'s the reporter or his administrative superiors at the newspaper -- they refused to do anything to corroborate his position. Because if they had, even the charging party made it clear there wouldn\'t have been any charges.\"
Ms. Redwood echoed Mr. Klein\'s sentiments, \"I feel that it was really the duty of the reporter to print the disclaimer\" that Mr. Johnson made at the beginning of the interview. Ms. Redwood was dismayed that the reporter \"failed or refused\" to take part in the proceedings.
When questioned about why the public disclaimers Mr. Johnson made were not adequate to shield him from censure Mr. Klein stated that Mr. Johnson\'s public statements confused union members. \"Well, what do members know? Members see their Vice President and their COPE [Committee on Political Education] Director speaking vigorously…and creating the illusion that we have this split decision on Vice President Gore and \'what was his name\'? Nader? When there was indeed none. So that\'s probably what he got caught in more than anything, and the reaction to that.\" Mr. Griffin summed up many participants\' perspective when he said that the proceedings were \"to protect the AFL-CIO, and it doesn\'t matter who pays the price.\"
Mr. Johnson stated that he would spend some time \"reflecting on what to do next.\" He stated that he felt he had three options: to appeal the Executive Board\'s decision within the AFL-CIO structure, to sue in a court of law, or to accept the censure. He stated that while the consensus of those who have contacted him has been that he should sue, he was conflicted about which course of action would be best to take. \"It\'s an issue of freedom of speech and union democracy [versus] accepting the censure and moving on.\" Mr. Johnson expressed concern that this issue not cause undue disagreement within the union but concluded that he felt \"the leadership of the house of labor is dividing labor.\"
Sascha D. Meinrath is a free-lance reporter and a director of the Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center (U-C IMC). He can be reached at: meinrath (at) urbana.indymedia.org. For further information about this and other stories visit the U-C IMC website: http://urbana.indymedia.org.
|
Comments
|
What If the Mr Johnson Had Not Disclaimed? |
by Mike Lehman
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Jan 2001
|
As one of the witnesses called in the hearing, I think an important point about the disclaimer is being missed here. It is a point that betrays the AFL-CIO's censureship of Mr. Johnson as a political hatchet job. What if Mr. Johnson had given his opinion in support of Mr. Nader and not given his disclaimer?
The reporter in question might very well have quoted him and noted that Mr. Johnson was an official with the AFL-CIO, somehow reading into this that the AFL-CIO was giving "back-door" support to Nader. I can imagine the outcry that would have occurred then, with even stronger crys for Mr. Johnson's head on a spit for implying (which he would not have done) that the AFL-CIO was supporting Nader. Mr. Johnson was FORCED to give the disclaimer by just such a possibility, to protect the integrity of his office, to make it clear that his personal opinion was not to be confused with the position of the AFL-CIO, to protect the AFL-CIO itself.
If being an AFL-CIO officer really does not mean giving up your First Amendment rights, there is a real Catch-22 situation with the AFL-CIO decision. Maybe what is really wanted by the AFL-CIO is to intimidate anyone from exercising their First Amendment rights. It is sad to see that the hypocrisy of corporate rule has become the standard by which the AFL-CIO conducts its business. On the one hand, there is the claim that there is a respect for the rights of an individual, while on the other hand, the blows of official punishment come down harshly, nonetheless, and excuses of the most obvious transparency are made to justify the injustice.
What else are we to conclude, when the prinsipals involved, Brewer and Klein, both seem to conclude that it is the reporter that they hold responsible for this sad state of affairs, yet they are dedicated to punishing Mr. Johnson? If we believe in freedom of the press, we may not like what some reporter writes, but we should respect their right to do their work, not seek to punish someone else because we can't punish them.This is not justice in any sense of the word, but if folks can be made to swallow the results of the last election, maybe they are so cowed that they'll accept the injustice done to Mr. Johnson by the AFL-CIO in this country, also. |
|
AFL-CIO Kangaroo Court? |
by Og Raphy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Jan 2001
|
AFL-CIO Kangaroo Court?
January 18, 2001
Via OgNet (distribute freely!)
There's nothing quite so breathtakingly arrogant as dues-supported union officials telling other union members what kind of political speech is acceptable or what candidates they must support. Unions are supposed to encourage participation in the political system, not dictate how you participate or who you vote for. I have belonged to several unions, and I don't recall the words "Democrats only" on any of the union cards when I signed up.
Yet the Political Director and Vice President for the Champaign, Illinois AFL-CIO was censured today for his personal support of Ralph Nader's Green Party presidential bid, in violation of a union policy requiring him to publicly support the AFL-CIO's endorsements.
Perhaps the vacuous Democratic Party leadership believes that Al Gore deserved the support of union members, and certainly plenty of union members were at least persuaded that he was better than Bush. But incidents such as the example above -- in which union leaders attempt to force their "subordinates" to ignore their own best judgements and "toe the party line" -- suggest a desperate grasping for coercive power by union officials. Ironically, this is the same sort of coercive political "thought control" that employers often try to impose on workers (and that unions are supposed to help prevent).
Instead of recriminations and internal witch-hunts, maybe union leaders (including the supposedly progressive John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO) should take a long look in the mirror, and ask themselves why so many thoughtful, committed labor leaders, activists, and rank-and-file members backed Ralph Nader and the Green Party, even in the face of a G.W. Bush victory, and despite the last-minute media hatchet job that the Democratic Party's ethically-challenged center-left supporters tried to pull on Nader.
The sad fact is that a majority of the leadership of the Democratic Party today lacks the ability to conceptualize and work toward a world that is fundamentally different from the one that we are already living in. The corporate-paid, "triangulation"-minded strategists of the Democratic Party are not the least bit interested in supporting the kinds of bold policies needed to create a world that is not be plagued by high levels of violence, ecological destruction, extreme wealth and poverty, racial and ethnic strife, social hierarchy and disharmony, legal injustice, political repression, and so on.
Not surprisingly, the Democrats are increasingly unable to capture the imagination of potential new voters or hold the loyalty of past supporters – just look at the growing number of non-voters, and the trend toward "unaffiliated" and third party registration by the shrinking number who do choose to vote.
In a sense, what mainstream labor and their Democratic allies are missing is a coherent Utopian vision to strive for, even while realizing it may never be fully realized. Instead, they invite us to dissipate our energy in incremental and often ineffective legislative "tinkering" strategies that make minor adjustments to the "rules of the game," but have little or no effect on the overall division of wealth or the health of the people or the biosphere or the fate of future generations.
The incredible shrinking political vision of Democratic Party leaders, including both DNC types like Gore and Lieberman, and supposedly progressive folks like Paul Wellstone and Jesse Jackson, has created a vacuum of ideas and left the door wide open for third parties, including the Greens, to win the votes of disaffected former Democratic voters.
The Greens will continue to gather votes and energy from among thoughtful, independent-minded union leaders because they offer a clear, principled alternative to the growth-crazy global-corporatist agenda that now lies at the core of both the major parties. If the corporatist agenda is something that mainstream labor leaders can live with (as they did with Clinton and Gore), then they should get used to doing without the votes and voices of many principled voters -- union and otherwise.
via OgNet (distribute freely!)
Comments? Questions? Indignant Denials? Huffy Rebuttals?
|
|
Collaboration? |
by Tex
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Jan 2001
|
|
The sad truth is the AFL-CIO leadership is so much in bed with the Democratic Party that they would not even support boycotting Walmart for fear of offending Clinton. Gore was a corporate whore and could not even win his home state. Nader has had a positive influence on the lives of working people that Gore/Bush could never come close to imitating. So let them act like Stalin and produce a show trial, and they will be greeted by more news like today's Wall Street Journal that union membership is now at an all time low. Those of us that are the real union people are just waiting for the day that working people rise up, the ruling elite will not be the only group that pays. |
|
Right on Tex ! |
by Ann O'Nymous
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Jan 2001
|
Right on Tex! A "show trial" is a good analogy, not only for this case with the AFL-CIO in Champaign, but also for the whole Democratic / Republican / mainstream media treatment of the Green's Presidential campaign.
They ignored us until it became clear that the Greens could not be ignored -- that, on the contrary, we would be decisive, even if in a negative sense.
Before the media finally turned the spotlight on the campaign in the last week-and-a-half of the campaign they attached a disporting lens, and a corporate filter that would only allow stories with the Nader-as-Spoiler theme to pass through.
A show trial is designed to give the illusion of democracy and fairness, in a system devoid of either. |
|
Thank you Ms Ann |
by Tex
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
20 Jan 2001
|
|
I have been in the Central Labor Council in my area for years, and I have watched as the Democrats have defeated our attempts to make a better life for everybody. After NAFTA the AFL-CIO squealed that they would not support anyone that voted for it, next election they marched in step. Since then there is a Labor Party, and they will not support it. Where is the striker replacement legislation we need? Are the thousands of mentally ill people Clinton dumped on the street better off today because Clinton, in the name of welfare reform, wanted to balance the budget? Where was the AFL-CIO when PATCO was destroyed? Hiding under the covers is where. Anyone interested should read the newest edition of Howard Zinn's "Peoples History of the United States" and check out the new last chapter on Clinton. There are good people in the labor movement and more and more tell me I was right in supporting Nader. |
|
