[Peace-discuss] labor and News notes 030817

[Morton K.Brussel]

My two cents On Labor and war:

It seems as if American labor, if represented by their spokesmen or 
leaders, are neither here no there on questions of war and peace or on 
questions of American manifest destiny, i.e. empire. Of course, one 
would hope and expect that they would be uniformly against the 
administrations' (not only this one's) positions, but unhappily, that 
is not the case. Yes, they were generally against NAFTA, but they in 
general refuse to draw the right conclusions when it comes to American 
Imperial policy. This situation leads to diminished enthusiasm for 
labor in general. It certainly has colored my sympathies and 
enthusiasms. I remember that during the Vietnam war, labor was a 
negative influence in general. The same was true in our involvements in 
Central and  South America, where organized labor (CIO-AFL) connived 
with U.S. administrations to undercut popular democratic movements. 
Even the relatively progressive industrial unions were disappointing 
here; Walter Reuther and the United Auto Workers union comes to mind.

Obviously, many union people and some of their leaders are/were 
anti-war, as you say, but on the whole, labor does not merit support 
for their war and peace positions. As an aside, it irks me to see the 
Flag flying on construction projects in C-U. It's a statement that they 
support the administration. Of course, the construction unions and the 
teamsters are among the worst in that regard, but one could cite many 
other cases.

My conclusion: U.S. labor is not on the whole a positive force for 
peace and justice in the world. Which leads me to wonder about AWARE 
participating in the Labor Day parade. Do so, but emphasize our 
disappointment to labor's obsequiousness (to use Carl's word) on the 
issues of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the next wars.

I too think Carl is much to be commended in his news and views of the 
week.

Mort


> Great job, as always, Carl-
>
> I didn't want to seem to quibble at the meeting,
> because (as a dues-paying member of the IWW, by the
> way) I certainly appreciate this historical note and
> relevance to the present...
>
>> Eighty-five years ago, some hundred members of the
>> IWW union were
>> sentenced in Chicago for opposing US participation
>> in WW I, some receiving
>> sentences of 20 years in prison. Collectively, the
>> defendants were fined a
>> total of $2,500,000. The IWW was virtually
>> destroyed. The suppression of
>> dissent in the US during and after the first World
>> War -- when "liberal"
>> presidents and judges jailed even presidential
>> candidates -- suggests
>> comparisons with the present. After all these years,
>> the labor movement
>> remains obsequious: "The AFL-CIO Executive Council,
>> at its meeting in
>> Chicago on Aug. 5-6, decided to continue its
>> virtually unbroken silence
>> about events in Afghanistan, the Middle East and the
>> war in Iraq. At a
>> press conference, AFL-CIO's political director Karen
>> Ackerman stated that
>> organized labor would have the 'biggest ever'
>> campaign to defeat President
>> George Bush in the 2004 elections. But in response
>> to reporters'
>> questions, she said that the AFL-CIO campaign would
>> focus exclusively on
>> domestic issues." [PR 0817]
>
> ... the AFL-CIO certainly purports to represent
> organized labor in this country, though there are
> still a few unions that don't belong to the AFL-CIO -
> like the IWW, United Electrical Workers, National
> Education Association - and now the Carpenters Union
> (for better or worse).  Even the member unions, in
> fact, don't necessarily line up with the AFL-CIO on
> any number of issues, but the AFL-CIO's positions are
> certainly a significant indicator for where labor is.
>
> One additional note, however: thousands of union
> members, hundreds of local unions, some multi-union
> councils (Philadelphia's Central Labor Council, for
> one) and a few national unions have endorsed US Labor
> Against the War (USLAW) since its founding in Chicago
> this winter.  Together these organizations represent a
> couple of million workers, altho all of them certainly
> would not agree with USLAW.  Still, it's significant
> in a similar way to the AFL-CIO's positions, albeit on
> a smaller scale.
>
> These anti-war unionists have been increasingly
> visible at the national anti-war demos, build more and
> stronger ties to an international
> labor-against-the-war movement, and are having a big
> anti-war "labor assembly" in Chicago in October to
> make some further plans to 'agitate, educate and
> organize' against the Bush wars (see Al Kagan's
> forward to this list for more info).
>
> I'm sure Carl doesn't mean to belittle these efforts.
> He has a lot of territory to cover every week, after
> all.  Just thought I'd throw it in.
>
> Ricky
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>