[Peace-discuss] labor and News notes 030817

Mon Aug 18 15:27:23 CDT 2003

However, the AFL-CIO did take a pretty good anti-war position on Iraq 
before the war started.  I think Mort is overly pessimistic on this. 
Things have changed since the Vietnam days.  The new US Labor Against 
the War organization is growing.  There will be a national conference 
this fall and Belden and I will be there.

At 3:16 PM -0500 8/18/03, Morton K.Brussel wrote:
>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
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-- 

Al Kagan
African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration
Africana Unit, Room 328
University of Illinois Library
1408 W. Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801, USA

tel. 217-333-6519
fax. 217-333-2214
e-mail. akagan at uiuc.edu