|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
News :: Labor |
|
Union Members Organizing Against War |
Current rating: 0 |
by Ricky Baldwin
Email: baldwinricky (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified!)
Phone: 217-356-2205
Address: 606 West White St, Champaign IL 61820 |
07 Feb 2003
|
|
In recent months, the anti-war movement within organized labor has been exploding, led by rank-and-file members and a handful of union officials. US Labor Against the War held its first meeting in Chicago less than a month ago, and since then their numbers have more than doubled. |
Union Members Organizing Against War
By Ricky Baldwin
Gene Bruskin, long-time labor activist who coordinated the first meeting of US Labor Against the War (USLAW) January 11 in Chicago, says rank-and-file union members are organizing against war with Iraq faster than organizers can sign them up. Michael Eisenscher, coordinator of San Francisco's Labor Committee for Peace and Justice and one of USLAW's founders, makes a similar observation. Hundreds of union locals and labor councils have passed anti-war resolutions, they point out proudly, from the Central Labor Council of Troy, NY, to Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Local 2 in San Francisco.
Teamsters Local 705 in Chicago, for example, is the second largest Teamsters local in the country. Secretary-Treasurer Gerry Zero expected a contentious debate when an anti-war resolution was proposed at a membership meeting in October. But to Zero's surprise, member after member rose to speak against war with Iraq, including several veterans. The resolution passed 402-1. "Our membership is split 50-50," said Zero. "Fifty percent don't believe a thing President Bush says, and fifty percent think he's a liar."
Over 100 union delegates attended the first USLAW meeting, representing an estimated two million workers around the country. The delegates produced a public declaration against "Bush's war drive," patterned after the resolution adopted by Local 705. The USLAW statement cites lack of evidence linking Iraq to al-Qaeda or any threat to the US, noting, "we have no quarrel with the ordinary working class men, women and children of Iraq, or any other country."
Since then, the movement has been spreading like wildfire. Unions representing around four million workers have now issued statements or passed resolutions against war, Bruskin says. That's twice as many as three weeks ago ("a conservative estimate"). "For example," he says, "the LA County Federation of Labor signed on, and so did [the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees] with a million members. Now, AFSCME is also part of the LA County Fed, so we didn't count those members twice."
The Communications Workers of America, the American Postal Workers Union, and other big national unions have recently issued statements against the war. And several statewide organizations like Service Employees 1199 New York and the conservative Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees of Pennsylvania have now passed anti-war resolutions.
Eisenscher points out that some of these resolutions are not as strong as many anti-war activists would like. "Iwould have written them differently," he says. And not all the anti-war resolutions have breezed through, notes Bruskin. One resolution calling on the White House to exhaust all other means before going to war had a tough time getting through the Buffalo AFL-CIO, for example. But consider the fact that the war on Iraq hasn’t started yet, says Eisenscher -- unless you count the on-going bombing raids in the US-imposed "no-fly" zones. The current anti-war movement in labor is head and shoulders above labor's opposition to any previous conflict this early on.
When the Philadelphia Central Labor Council (CLC) was debating its resolution January 8, in fact, one of the delegates objected to the resolution because "we didn't pass resolutions like this when the US invaded Haiti." In response, Pat Gillespie, a vice president of the CLC and head of the area building trades, had this to say: "We should have had a resolution then and that's why we need it now. That whole Gulf of Tonkin Resolution [authorizing overt war in Vietnam] was a big lie. It's a good thing we have organizations like this one that are willing to challenge the President."
But the shift within organized labor is just months old. Just a year ago, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney was expressing "shoulder to shoulder" unity with White House war plans. And he wasn't alone. "After 9-11," says Bruskin, "people were in shock. It was a pretty horrible thing. Most folks were not into criticizing the government, because they wanted someone to protect them, and they rallied around the flag."
But as the year went on, Bruskin says, "people started seeing problems with Bush's handling of the war, and a whole series of anti-union activities were coming out of the White House." Airlines in the US, for example, took all the money the federal government could dish out and still laid off tens of thousands of workers, demanding concessions from those who remained.
Michael Eisenscher agrees: "The Bush Administration invoked the Taft-Hartley Act against the ILWU [Longshoremen]. The Homeland Security Act deprived 170,000 federal employees of their union rights. And it became clear that Bush was fighting a two-front war: one was the so-called 'war on terror' and the other was a war on the American working people."
Eisenscher also says there was some opposition to war within labor from the beginning, including scattered participation in the first demonstrations against the bombing of Afghanistan in October 2001. "About three weeks after 9-11," Eisenscher says, "over 70 union members from about 35 labor organizations gathered in the Bay Area [to oppose the war], and about the same time, the New York Committee Against War was formed. There were others around the country, but most of them didn't know about each other. So we started to network with one another."
Labor's part in anti-war protests was diffuse and hard to spot at first. But as it grew, it gained momentum and organizational structure. Bob Muehlencamp, President of the Duluth Central Labor Council, publicly criticized AFL-CIO President John Sweeney's failure to oppose war.
Since then, Sweeney has attacked the Bush Administration's rush to war, and union members have been increasingly visible at national anti-war protests. By January 18, labor unions were an unmistakable part of the national demonstrations in Washington DC and San Francisco.
Now anti-war unionists are looking forward to worldwide protests February 15, where USLAW plans to turn out a well-organized labor contingent. "We are reaching out to unions around the world," says Eisenscher. "We are gearing up to do whatever it takes to stop this madman in the White House."
|
Comments
|
Re: Union Members Organizing Against War |
by Utterly Amused
chicagofreeper (nospam) yahoo.com (verified) |
Current rating: -5
08 Feb 2003
|
|
My union brothers, sisters, and I recognize the Anti-War organizers for what they are: Saddam's sock puppets.
Quit drinking the bong water folks, get a clue.
Has The Anti-War movement Been Hi-Jacked? |
|
A Freeper Union Member: Oh, Really? |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Feb 2003
|
I always thought that freepers wee the type who say, "I don't need a union... I can negotiate with the boss on my own."
I seriously doubt that this freeper commenter is a union member anywhere. |
|
Re: Utterly Amused |
by Joe Parnarauskis
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Feb 2003
|
|
I'm amused by the freeper's comments as he seems oblivious to the growing worlwide movement against Bush and his warmongers. I suggest to the freeper and his "union" buddies, "You and Bush ain't seen nothin' yet". |
|
Re: Union Members Organizing Against War |
by sarah young
sarah899 (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
09 Feb 2003
Modified: 12:09:25 PM |
Very interesting article. I work at the International Headquarters of the Teamsters in DC and went to the Jan 18 protests. It was great to see the Labor contingent at the front of the march, sending the message that opposition to the war is not merely a white hippie middle class cause. I marched beside poor and working class whites, blacks, and other ethnic minorities, proud to witness the true consensus reached over this issue.
And it's great to hear that Local 705 came out against Bush. You know Labor is voicing some serious concerns when even the Teamsters, probably the most centrist of North America's labor unions, speaks out against military action. |
|
Demonstration Strategy - Free Speech, Clarity Of Message |
by listen to the critics
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Feb 2003
|
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2527
- key extract:
------------
So we need to consider various questions.
First, are those with antiwar views contrary to the IAC's perspective excluded from speaking? Second, what will be the primary message perceived by those present at the demonstrations and by the wider public?
- Longer excerpt from article:
----------------------------
(8) How should we relate to groups doing antiwar work with whom we disagree in significant ways -- the IAC and ANSWER, NION, the war's mainstream opponents? How do we evaluate all these? Should we work with people we have serious differences with, avoid them, or what?
There is no universal rule for how to relate to those with whom we disagree. If we automatically refused to have anything to do with any person or organization with whom we had differences, then we'd be protesting the war in demonstrations of two or three individuals. Obviously, we need to take account of how much disagreement there is and whether working with particular groups allows us to express a shared agreement and further our goals, despite our disagreements, or whether, on the other hand, working with particular groups restricts or undermines our efforts in some significant ways.
One extremely energetic antiwar group is the International Action Center (IAC). It is the leading force in the coalition ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) which is calling the October 26 demonstrations in Washington, DC and elsewhere. (IAC and ANSWER share a New York City phone number and the latter's website features many materials from IAC.) IAC is officially led by Ramsey Clark and is largely the creation of the Workers World Party; many key IAC figures are prominent writers for WWP.
WWP holds many views that we find abhorrent. It considers North Korea "socialist Korea" where the "land, factories, homes, hotels, parks, schools, hospitals, offices, museums, buses, subways, everything in the DPRK belongs to the people as a whole" (Workers World, May 9, 2002), a fantastic distortion of the reality of one of the most rigid dictatorships in the world. IAC expresses its solidarity with Slobodan Milosevic (http://www.iacenter.org/yugo_milosdeligation.htm). There's of course much to criticize in the one-sided Hague war crimes tribunal, but to champion Milosevic is grotesque. The ANSWER website provides an IAC backgrounder on Afghanistan that refers to the dictatorial government that took power in that country in 1978 as "socialist" and says of the Soviet invasion the next year: the "USSR intervened militarily at the behest of the Afghani revolutionary government" (http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/resources/index.html) -- neglecting to mention that Moscow first had to engineer the execution of the Afghan leader to get themselves the invitation to intervene.
In none of IAC's considerable resources on the current Iraq crisis is there a single negative word about Saddam Hussein. There is no mention that he is a ruthless dictator. (This omission is not surprising, given their inability to detect any problem of dictatorship with the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan.) There is no mention that Hussein is responsible for the deaths of many tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds and Shi'ites. IAC's position is that any opponent of U.S. imperialism must be championed and never criticized.
How do these views affect antiwar demonstrations organized by IAC or ANSWER? They do so in two primary ways.
First, an important purpose of antiwar demonstrations is to educate the public, so as to be able to build a larger movement. If the message of a demonstration is that opposition to U.S. war means support for brutal regimes, then we are mis-educating the public, and limiting the growth of the movement. To be sure, some true things we say may also alienate some members of the public, and often that is a risk we must take in order to communicate the truth and change awareness. But to tell the public that they have to support either George Bush or Saddam Hussein is not true and is certainly not a way to build a strong movement. People are not wrong to be morally repelled by Saddam Hussein. An antiwar movement that cannot make clear its opposition to the crimes of both Bush and Hussein will of necessity be limited in size.
The second problem with IAC-organized demonstrations is that the day-to-day practice of IAC cadre often shows a lack of commitment to democratic and open behavior. It is not surprising that those who lionize the dictatorial North Korean regime will be somewhat lacking in their appreciation of democratic practice.
Does this mean that people who reject these abhorrent views of the IAC shouldn't attend the October 26 antiwar demonstrations in Washington, DC, San Francisco, and elsewhere? No.
If there were another large demonstration organized by forces more compatible with the kinds of politics espoused by other antiwar activists, including ourselves, then we would urge people to prefer that one. And there is no doubt we should be working to build alternative organizational structures for the antiwar movement that are not dominated by IAC. But at the moment the ANSWER demonstration is the only show in town. And much as we may oppose Saddam Hussein, we also oppose Bush, and the paramount danger today is the war being prepared by the U.S. government.
So we need to consider various questions.
First, are those with antiwar views contrary to the IAC's perspective excluded from speaking? Second, what will be the primary message perceived by those present at the demonstrations and by the wider public?
If past experience is a guide, IAC demonstrations will have programs skewed in the direction of IAC politics, but without excluding alternative voices. In general, the IAC speakers will not be offensive so much for what they say, but for what they don't say. That is, they won't praise Saddam Hussein from the podium, but nor will they utter a critical word about him. However, as long as other speakers can and do express positions with a different point of view, the overall impact of the event will still be positive, particularly in the absence of other options. Most of the people at the demonstration will in fact be unaware of exactly who said what and whether any particular speaker omitted this or that point. What they will experience will be a powerful antiwar protest. And most of the public will see it that way too. (As was the case during the Vietnam War too: few demonstrators knew the specific politics or agendas of demonstration organizers.) Accordingly, and in the absence of any alternative event, it makes sense to help build and to attend the October 26 demonstration, while also registering extreme distaste for the IAC, at least in our view.
Another significant antiwar organization is Not In Our Names. NION has issued a very eloquent and forceful Pledge of Resistance opposing Bush's war on terrorism, signed by prominent individuals and thousands of others. NION organized important demonstrations around the U.S. on October 6 and on June 6.
Significant impetus behind NION comes from the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). RCP identifies itself as followers of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Their website (http://rwor.org/) expresses support for Shining Path in Peru (which they say should properly be called the Maoist Communist Party of Peru), an organization with a gruesome record of violently targeting other progressive groups. For the RCP, freedom doesn't include the right of a minority to dissent (this is a bourgeois formulation, they say, pushed by John Stuart Mill and Rosa Luxembourg); the correct view, they say, is that of Mao (the "greatest revolutionary of our time"): "If Marxist Leninists are in control, the rights of the vast majority will be guaranteed."
Despite these views, however, RCP does not push its specific positions on NION to the degree that IAC does on ANSWER. For example, while the ANSWER website offers such things as the IAC backgrounder on Afghanistan cited above, the NION website and its public positions have no connection to the sometimes bizarre views of the RCP.
The case for participating in NION events is stronger than for ANSWER events. It still makes overwhelming sense to build better antiwar coalitions, but in the meantime supporting NION activities promotes an antiwar message that we support, with relatively little compromise of our views.
|
See also:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2527
|
|
Re: Critics |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
11 Feb 2003
|
The continued growth of the peace movement in the US undermines what little relevance the repost above from Z-Mag once had. This growth has been in spite of both the mistaken concept that somehow IAC and the WWP are leading the movement and in spite of the red-baiting attacks by certain segments of the liberal community.
There is nothing new in the article referenced above -- in fact, it is a repost of material written last October, that was less-than-accurate in its hand-wringing concerns then and is even less so today. Reposting it now is nothing but an exercise in red-baiting -- something which is not helpful at all at this moment, despite the proclaimed good intentions of the original authors. |
|
Not Many Members Are Against War |
by Union Member
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Feb 2003
Modified: 01:42:49 PM |
As a Teamster union member for many years I support the president. I do not agree with the unions on this issue. I think all unions should stay out of this issue period. By coming out with these view they are dividing the workers they are trying to represent. In short, maybe all members agree on more pay and better healthcare, hell that is easy. To try and go againist the the country in a time of threat is something many members can't get behind. This is not the purpose of the union. The wedge created by our union leaders will backfire. Average Americans now releate our unions as AMERICAN first. This is even more important when you look back on union history that is often intertwined with communists or extremist groups. It has taken a long time to gain this measure of acceptance with the American public. This is working againist the interests of the unions, americans and the workers the union's claim to represent. However, stances like these make me feel the union just wants my union dues every month and give 2 cents about my interests.
Also: ML - What union are you in? I mean what real work do you do? Are you a member of some little office union to get eco-friendly light bulbs and lumbar supported chairs? Have you done any REAL work, the kind where you wake up and your back is sore, your finger bleed, the work that built America? These men and women would shove a piece of 10 ft. conduit (look it up for you none labor types) up Sadaam's ass faster than George Bush ever would. |
|
War Is Bad For Workers, And Other Living Things, Like Unions |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Feb 2003
Modified: 02:08:27 PM |
Dear UM,
I can assure you that I've paid my dues as a working man. I've got the repetitive motion and other injuries to prove it, to the extent that I can't do what I used to do for a living. My collar is every bit as blue as yours. Right now I'm in training to qualify for a job that will finally let me be a union member. I've done coalition work with many union organizations, including the local AFL-CIO.
And no, I've never been in a union, yet, despite having been through two recognition campaigns. The last one lost me my job, too; even though I wasn't even in the proposed bargaining unit, management was real happy to give me the ax along with the union brothers and sisters.
I'm willing to fight from within or without a union for workers rights. It's too bad Teamsters management wasn't willing to help us enough to win, but that's another topic entirely. There are some great Teamsters, but there are still way too many kiss-ass corporate types like Brother Hoffa holding you back. He should worry more about his losing his job and working Teamsters should worry less about losing theirs. Kissing up to the pResident sure ain't going to do it.
Why is it so hard for workers to get a union in this country? Ask your pal George W. about it. I'm sure he can explain how important it is for the government to "protect" workers's right or some such shtick that you just might believe.
I am bit concerned about your mistaken belief that somehow the war is not a union issue. Bush's aim to eventually conquer the world (do you really think this has much to do with terrorism or that he'll be satisfied with merely possessing Iraq?) will just mean that many more US jobs shipped overseas , while his campaign contributors (none of whom favor the right for workers to even have a union) rake in the profits, allowing them to buy more politicians like Bush, etc, etc, and they'll go right back to busting unions when they're done with the Iraqis...you may be getting the point, I hope.
Otherwise, your children will curse your inaction in the face of one of the most biggest opponents of worker rights the world has ever known. He's perfectly willing to kill Iraqi workers for his own benefit and he'll have no trouble killing any US workers that try to stand in his way. And his name isn't Saddam Hussein. |
|
Are You A HS Gradujuaate? |
by Union Member
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Feb 2003
Modified: 05:24:59 PM |
|
What do you mean,"Bush's aim to eventually conquer the world?" That make no sense at all. Have you thought about this? Let's say Bush did conquer the world. Nearlly every citizen in these countries would be getting a big ass pay raise. American workers earn much more than most people in the world even without unions. Not that I think the minimum wage is overally high, but 5 bucks a hour sure beats .50 cents a day. By conquering the world, he would actually increase the worker's rights and wage by those worker's being under American laws as they now stand. In short, the conquer the world thing is about the most ingnorant thing I have seen on this page. The last thing the President wants to do is conquer the world. As for killing American workers where is that going on? Why would he kill Iraqi workers, because the are such a competive threat to American workers? Go back to your bong. |
|
Get Real |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Feb 2003
Modified: 06:16:43 PM |
UM,
I don't recall hearing that expansion of the US minimum wage overseas has any part in Bush's war on "terrorism". In fact, the same people in charge at the White House would probably not mind completely getting rid of the min. wage here at home, if you give them half a chance. Were you one of Bush's useful idiots last November? That's OK, don't answer, your vote should be private (and you're probably glad it is.)
And just to point out that the US is hardly a worker's paradise, can you tell us when the last time the min. wage was increased?
Since you're a little slow (even some of the anti-union guys I used to work with are smarter than you) it's 1997. Yup, the politicians of both major parties have invented one excuse after another for six years to do absolutely nothing to raise the min. wage. That means that the min. wage has been effectively falling for six years.
And I would have hoped that any decent union member would have first thought to insist on extending US labor protections to these fellow workers that you're hoping Bush conquers in your imagined campaign of his for foreign labor rights. Oh, that's right, there are hardly any labor protections realistically left in US law at this point. Duh, that sure wouldn't work, now would it. If the past US record in this area is any clue, those workers in Baghdad will have even fewer labor rights than they do under Saddam.
And if you don't know the long history of killing of workers who get too uppity for the bosses here in the United States, then you, sir, don't know your own history. Among the industrial world, the US has one of the bloodiest records of labor rights suppression. Ask your union steward about getting some education in this regard or inquire about taking a labor history course at the U of I or, soon, Parkland. You're a friggin' embarrassment to your union brothers and sisters. |
|
Reality Is Where I Live, You Dont. |
by Union Member
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Feb 2003
Modified: 03:49:29 AM |
ML-I think you need to start with a remidial class in composition and rhetoric before you post anything else on the site. You seem to have a difficult time articulating a clear and cohesive arguement. In fact, it makes it damm difficult to have a little debate on this board because you are spewing out bullshit as fast as you can type. None of which has any connection to your previously printed statements.
ML you wrote- "Bush's aim to eventually conquer the world (do you really think this has much to do with terrorism or that he'll be satisfied with merely possessing Iraq?) will just mean that many more US jobs shipped overseas..."
As I pointed out before the logic behind your notion that Bush wants to conquer the world in order to export US jobs is completely flawed. It would make no sense to take over, say Mexico for example, and create for example a 51st state. The simple reason is this: the new state of Mexico, and its citizens, would now be getting the same rights and protections as all other American workers. This would be a massive increase you DIPSHIT over what they current enjoy under the Mexican government. Now, you can substitue the example of Mexico with just about any other country in the world. If the intent is to export all of the jobs in the United States, as you suggest, it seems it would be more adventagous to not conquer them or help them at all. The shit hole governments that run them are more than happy to have their workers work for pennies on the dollar that the American worker earns working at minimum wage. In short, they have NO minimum wage NUMNUTS. So why on gods green earth would we take over their country, establish our rule of law, and by doing so give them a minimum wage. It would then make no sense to send US jobs to save on labor costs. None of which has anything remotely to do with Bush & Blair disarming Iraq.
As a union member and a person who can establish a logical arguement, unlike yourself, I find it strange that you blindly champion all union causes. What is you view of the major league sporting unions? Clearly, that has to be the extreme of what happens when unions are left unbalanced by the needs of business. Million dollar players striking to get a wage increase. What a bunch of crap.
But I, unlike you, am a realist. I believe that unions do have a place in certain industries, yet they have no place in others. As for classes, I am better educated in labor & industrial relations issues then you are and that I know for a fact. Have you heard of things as the Wagner Act, Taft-Hartley Act and the Landrum-Griffin Act? How about Samuel Gompers? The Fair Labor Standards Act? Could you define what right to work states are? I only point these out because I have a strong feeling that you don't know; You should not be lecturing anybody on education.
I also understand very well the bloody history of the American union worker. I know that we are very indebted to those who struggeled to get the 40 hour work week, time and half overtime pay for non-exempt workers. Yet, these are no longer union issues; They are federal law enjoyed by all. These laws which we all take for granted now, are not enjoyed in many other countries. So when you write bullshit like: "If the past US record in this area is any clue, those workers in Baghdad will have even fewer labor rights than they do under Saddam." Even history dosn't agree with you. It just shows the massive ignorance in all of your assertions. Send my best to Sadaam, BITCH!
|
|
UM, You're The One In La-La Land |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Feb 2003
Modified: 11:32:03 AM |
UM,
I'm not in the least bit impressed by your display of willful ignorance.
First off, someone who spells "remedial" as "remidial" really should look into some composition classes themselves before suggested that others need it more than they.
Your ridiculous assertion that I am claiming that the workings of imperialism will somehow result in the nations which Bush dominates and wishes to dominate will somehow be turned into the 51st, 52nd, etc states is definitely not what I was talking about. Sure the Pentagon claims it isn't fighting to seize Iraq's oil. The fact is this system operates by installing compliant local leaders by force, then making sure that they toe the US line by bribery or threat of replacement. In fact, that is exactly Saddam's position. He used to be our good buddy when he was doing our bidding, now he has to go. It's an old story, repeated around the world in many other places, for instance Noriega in Panama, Marcos in the Philippines, etc. They can murder and pillage their own people all they want and the US government could care less, as long as they do our bidding.
And you seem to imply that I have somehow asserted that nations like Mexico and Iraq have better labor laws than the US. All I said was that more US involvement in their affairs would make things even worse, which is a very different thing. I'm more than willing to leave it to the workers in other countries to solve their own problems, without the interference of the CIA and AIFLD. See: http://www.officeoftheamericas.org/docs/2002/020523acils_pacifica_radio.htm
http://users.crocker.com/~acacia/text_labor_cia.html
http://www.namebase.org/main1/American_Institute_Free_labor_development.html
BTW, many other countries have minimum wage laws. Like much else in labor law where workers are oppressed, these laws are honored only occasionally at best. Where such protections exist, they are constantly being undermined by "free" trade policies that encourage countries to eliminate them because they are seen as impediments to the "free" trade in a global economic system dominated by the US.
I really am beginning to believe that you are probably not a union member at all when you start in with comments that indicate that you think that only certain workers deserve the right to have a union. Your smartass crack about the baseball players shows that. If anything, their situation shows the benefits of having a strong union, one that stands on somewhat equal footing with the owners. Apparently, you rank your desire to watch baseball uninterrupted as higher than their right to have a union and exercise their right to engage in job actions. Any union member that says he or she isn't willing to honor a picket line is too weak-kneed to stand up for their own rights, let alone show a little solidarity with the rights of other workers.
Of course, you seem a more than a little confused about labor history. While the Wagner Act was a great advance in that it finally recognized workers' rights to form a union and engage in collective action, the Taft-Hartley Act took away almost as many rights as the Wagner Act had granted. No labor organizer worth a damn would have anything good to say about Taft-Hartley, but Republicans sure like it. Which is one more sign that you are, most likely, the FReeper (or someone who sure thinks like him) whose first comment attacked the original article above.
For more info, see:
http://www.essential.org/features/laborday.html
http://www.holtlaborlibrary.org/tafthartley.html
http://www.portsolidarity2002.org/pages/docpage/call.html
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/biztips/00/09tafthartley.html
Landrum-Griffin was another imposition on labor to undermine its power. While claiming to protect the rights of workers against crooked union leaders, it has been a miserable failure at that (ask a REAL Teamster just how corrupt their union has been most of the time since its passage in 1959.)
See:
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/bus/A0828769.html
http://www.nea.org/nr/nr030214.html
The fact that you choose to completely ignore my own story of labor rights being crushed under the heel of management loopholes, aided and abetted by a NLRA modified by the Taft-Hartley Act, shows that you haven't a clue what you are talking about. No thanks are due to you for the solidarity you've failed to show to me and the 150 others who lost their jobs due to the completely ineffective NLRB that workers have suffered under since Taft-Hartley was passed. You seem to act like you think that was a good thing.
Right-to-Work? Yeah, I know all about it and this Republican pResident would find his heart's desire if he could impose it on every state. Elect (no, that's NOT the right word -- have the Supreme Court SELECT) him again, and you might just find out.
You also assert that the 40-hour week and time-and-a-half for overtime "are no longer union issues." You need to read the news more often. The Bushies just proposed doing away with those protections under a technical change in regulations for millions of US workers so that labor can be more "flexible." Do you really think this Supreme Court will step in to say that Bush needs to go to Congress and force a floor vote that will make Republicans (and, probably sadly, a few Democrats) take a very public position on this before the law can be changed? I sure wouldn't count on it, but you're probably a big enough sucker to believe that they would only be doing this "for you own good."
See:
http://www.helenair.com/articles/2003/02/01/breaking/a02020103_01.txt
Most of your arguments are little more than cynical retreads of typical conservative propaganda about labor. Sir, you're no friend of labor and I doubt that you are even a union member. I have, however, included links to so that others may learn from your ignorant and servile comments, even though you are unlikely to benefit since your head is clearly where the sun don't shine.
|
|
A Regime That Hates Democracy Can't Wage War For Democracy |
by Harvey Wasserman
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Feb 2003
|
George W. Bush says he wants to attack Iraq to install democracy. But as he explained on December 18, 2002: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
Under Bush the Constitutional guarantees that have made America a beacon to the world for two centuries have been shredded in two short years.
In terms of basic legal rights and sanctuary from government spying, Americans may be less free under George W. Bush than as British subjects under George III in 1776.
Though the trappings of free speech remain on the surface of American society, the Homeland Security Act, Patriot I, Patriot II and other massively repressive legislation, plus Republican control of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, plus GOP dominance of the mass media, have laid the legal and political framework for a totalitarian infrastructure which, when combined with the capabilities of modern computer technology, may be unsurpassed.
The Administration has used the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, as pretext for this centralization of power. But most of it was in the works long before September 11 as part of the war on drugs and Bush's modus operandi as the most secretive and authoritarian president in US history.
So with today's US as a model, what would be in store for Iraqis should Bush kill hundreds of thousands of them to replace Saddam Hussein?
* President Bush has asserted the right to execute "suspected terrorists" without trial or public notice;
* The Administration claims the right to torture "suspected terrorists," and by many accounts has already done so;
* Attorney-General John Ashcroft has asserted the right to brand "a terrorist" anyone he wishes without evidence or public hearing or legal recourse;
* The Administration has arrested and held without trial hundreds of "suspected terrorists" while denying them access to legal counsel or even public notification that they have been arrested;
* The Administration has asserted the right to inspect the records of bookstores and public libraries to determine what American citizens are reading;
* The Administration has asserted the right to break into private homes and tap the phones of US citizens without warrants;
* The Administration has attempted to install a neighbors-spying-on-neighbors network that would have been the envy of Joe Stalin;
* The Administration has effectively negated the Freedom of Information Act and runs by all accounts the most secretive regime in US history;
* When the General Accounting Office, one of the few reliably independent federal agencies, planned to sue Vice President Dick Cheney to reveal who he met to formulate the Bush Energy Bill, Bush threatened to slash GAO funding, and the lawsuit was dropped;
* After losing the 2000 election by more than 500,000 popular votes (but winning a 5-4 majority of the US Supreme Court), the Administration plans to control all voting through computers operated by just three companies, with code that can be easily manipulated, as may have been done in Georgia in 2002, winning seats for a Republican governor and US senator, and in Nebraska to elect and re-elect US Senator Chuck Hagel, an owner of the voting machine company there;
* FCC Chair Michael Powell (son of Colin) is enforcing the Administration's demand that regulation be ended so nearly all mass media can be monopolized by a tiny handful of huge corporations;
* Attorney-General Ashcroft has assaulted states rights, a traditional Republican mainstay, using federal troops to trash public referenda legalizing medical marijuana in nine states;
* Ashcroft has overridden his own federal prosecutors and assaulted local de facto prohibitions against the death penalty, which has been renounced by every other industrial nation and is now used only by a handful of dictatorships, including Iraq.
Overseas, the US record is infamous. Among those it has put in power are Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and Manuel Noriega, not to mention Somoza, Pinochet, Marcos, Mobutu, the Shah, the Greek Junta and too many other murderous dictators to mention in a single article.
Afghanistan, leveled in the name of democracy and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, now stands ruined and abandoned. In sequel, Bush is gathering Iraq attackers with the promise of cash bribes, oil spoils and conquered land.
Turkey, Bulgaria and Bush's manufactured Iraqi opposition are already squabbling over the booty. Bush says rebuilding will be funded by Iraqi oil revenues, probably administered through the same core regime now in place, but with a different figurehead.
In other words: the media hype about bringing democracy to Iraq is just that. There is absolutely no reason to believe a US military conquest would bring to Iraq the beloved freedoms George W. Bush is so aggressively destroying here in America.
A regime that so clearly hates democracy at home is not about to wage war for one abroad.
Copyright © 2003 by Harvey Wasserman
http://www.commondreams.org/
|
|
Ahhhh! |
by John Rambo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Feb 2003
Modified: 12:26:26 PM |
Harvey, I am sure you will be follow, stalked, caputured, interrogated, and tourtured for being a suspected terroist on your way to your local coffee shop. Oh watch out, the sky is falling. As for the people you suggest the US has put in power, it is not true, the US dosn't get to chose which scum that are in these countries. It is often the lessor of two evils. The US did not create Sadaam. The French and Germans have provided much more support to him than we have. Would you say they "created him?" I don't think so.
John Rambo
"I am your worst nightmare" |
|
Re: Jack Ryan (aka John Rambo) |
by Doctor forJR
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
25 Feb 2003
Modified: 26 Feb 2003 |
|
JR, you seem to be losing your grip. You've stopped taking your meds. Come to the office for your monthly shot of haldol decanoate. It will decrease your inner fears, help you get some sleep, calm the voices in your head. Remember, it's your brain playing tricks on you. Call your whistleblower for a ride to the office. I'm concerned. |
|
Unions Are Joining Peace Parade |
by Steve Early
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Mar 2003
|
WHEN PEACE demonstrators staged mass rallies on both coasts this month, there were new faces in the crowd and on the speakers' platforms. 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 US 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 the Communications Workers of America.
Locally, two AFL-CIO regional bodies composed of unions in southeastern Massachusetts and north of Boston, have joined the antiwar movement. 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 Sept. 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 18 months ago. Members of various New York City unions performed 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 US 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 Tom Buffenbarger, president of the International Association of Machinists. ''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 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 Homeland Security Department'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 and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration with appointees hostile to workers' rights.
Despite a $70 billion boost in military spending over the past two years, he is 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 grass roots, 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 escalated this winter, labor-based peace campaigners met in Chicago to form US Labor Against the War, or USLAW, which is promoting union participation in the antiwar movement, here and abroad. After much USLAW lobbying, the AFL-CIO executive council declared on Thursday that the president had failed to make the case ''for military action at this time.''
Not all of American labor agrees with this position. Some unions - like the Carpenters - have been heavily wooed by the White House, and Teamsters Union president Jimmy Hoffa is 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 fallout of invading Iraq will only make working-class life in the United States 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.
Published on Saturday, March 1, 2003 by the Boston Globe |
|
