BY DIANNE FEELEY
DETROIT — On January 11, a meeting of more than 100 officers of US trade unions and activists from a number of labour anti-war committees met in Chicago to establish US Labor Against the War (USLAW). The meeting reflected the growth of anti-war sentiment over the last six months.
Approximately 40 central labour councils (geographic bodies that unite all AFL-CIO unions), six national unions and dozens of local unions — all up representing 4.5 million US workers — have adopted various anti-war resolutions.
Right after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, New York City Labor Against War formed around a petition calling for "justice not vengeance", defence of civil liberties and opposition to racism. It has been signed by more than 1400 trade unionists. Similar committees sprang up in Albany, NY, the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Area, Detroit, Portland, Seattle and Washington, DC.
The committees conducted training sessions in how trade unionists could raise the anti-war issue with co-workers and organised labour contingents at anti-war demonstrations. These committees also made the point that the dramatic increase in the military budget was at the expense of social needs.
Additionally, swift passage of the US Patriot Act set back the labour movement's demand that the federal law making it illegal for an undocumented worker to hold a job be repealed. After 9/11, Congress passed legislation requiring those who screen passengers' luggage at US airports to be citizens.
More than 800 screeners at the San Francisco airport — many of whom have worked there for up to 10 years and won a union contract with higher wages and benefits only two years ago — faced being fired because they were not citizens. Along with immigrant rights organisations and the Service Employees International Union Local 790, the Bay Area labour anti-war committee protested this unnecessary restriction, pointing out that the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS) was unwilling even to "fast track" the screeners' citizenship applications.
US President George Bush's drive to war against Iraq has seen greater questioning or outright opposition to the war on the part of trade unionists. That is because of the unilateral position the administration first took, its arrogant articulation of a preemptive strategy and the fact that Iraq has no connection to al Qaeda.
Perhaps even more importantly, over the past year reality has hit that this permanent war has huge domestic implications. The economy is still faltering, and even if it revives, little hiring will follow. The dramatic expansion of the military budget is draining resources from social needs.
The recently passed Homeland Security Act — requiring the massive reorganisation of 22 federal agencies and affecting 170,000 union members — has given homeland security director Tom Ridge the authority to suspend civil service regulations, including union rights. Yet the Office of Personnel Management cannot cite one single example showing that unions have ever compromised "national security". This act parallels business demands for greater "labour flexibility" at the workplace.
Finally, Bush's willingness to invoke the anti-worker Taft-Hartley Act and send the west coast International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) back to work during a recent dispute with management indicated his determination to intervene in labour disputes.
This was clearly a warning to other unions: militant action in defence of workers' rights will be treated by the administration as harmful to the economy and the battle against terrorism.
During the northern summer and autumn, a number of labour bodies passed resolutions opposing the war in Iraq. The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers (UE) and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) were the first national unions to oppose the war, and 100,000-member Californian teachers' union and Chicago's Teamsters Local 705 — the second largest Teamster local in the country — also passed strong statements.
A number of central labour councils have also endorsed specific anti-war demonstrations or voiced opposition to a war in Iraq. More important than the text of the resolutions — or even their actual passage — is how they reflect discussions in offices, factories and union halls.
The growing opposition among workers led to AFL-CIO President John Sweeney's October 7 letter to members of Congress. The letter asserted that debate on the war was needed and that evidence of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction must be presented before war. True, it basically instructed US policymakers in how they should go about getting consensus, but the letter's importance is that it provided more political space within the union movement to raise questions and debate the Bush war drive.
This questioning at the top is a factor in giving radical labour activists some time and space to illustrate how war is used to attack the US working class. Passage of the Homeland Security Act and the US Patriot Act have set a political framework that reinforces racial profiling and a variety of anti-immigrant practices, including a dramatic rise in workplace INS raids.
Labour movement activists can point to the double standards that exist, such as: according to Bush, it's bad for Iraq to have weapons of mass destruction, but fine for Israel; and, although Bush doesn't talk about it, it was okay for the US to have given biological weapons to Iraq when Saddam Hussein was the friend of past administrations, but now the Bush administration has the right to police the country (of course, the media fails to note that many of Hussein's crimes took place when he was Washington's favourite).
It is also easier to talk about how US policy in the Middle East is driven by the quest to control oil.
In the car plant where I work, many workers have served in the military — not just those from the Vietnam War era, when workers were subject to the draft, but also those younger workers who enlisted to get some skills. Some are still in the reserves. So when there is talk of war, it is very close to the bone. My co-workers often raise the idea that we must do everything to keep our soldiers from being in a war. Even veterans of past wars have spoken up to say they distrust the pro-war propaganda they hear.
In Detroit, our Labor Committee for Peace and Justice (LCPJ) is working with the Detroit Coalition of Labor Union Women to organise a forum in February,"Why labour should oppose the coming war". Our perspective also includes organising workshops directed toward labour movement activists whenever teach-ins are organised by the larger local anti-war coalitions.
As a Detroit LCPJ leaflet against the war in Iraq points out, if we don't trust Bush's domestic policies because we see how destructive they are for workers, why should we trust his foreign policy?
[Diane Feeley is a member of the US socialist organisation Solidarity. From International Viewpoint.]
From Green Left Weekly, February 5, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.