In the book, Burns argues that the “business unionism” ideology of class-collaboration with employers and the service-oriented model that has been embraced by most labor officials for the past several decades has led labor to a historical low point and does not have the answers to successfully lead a new upsurge. He further states that a relatively recent phenomenon – something he terms “labor liberalism” – presents another dead end for labor activists seeking a more militant, member-centered trade union movement. “Labor liberalism,” as Burns writes about it, places an emphasis on staff-driven efforts which often place union energy, funds, and resources into struggles beyond the shop floor.

There are positive signs on the horizon. Like young workers across the country, YWC members have participated in new union organizing, and witnessed growing interest in the militant, class struggle tactics like strikes that made big gains for the labor movement in the past. With the wave of union activity in the coffee sector, museums, education, and the recent victory for 8000 Amazon workers in New York, there are thousands of new unionists entering the movement eager to learn and lead.

The goal of the Young Workers Committee is to provide young unionists with the practical skills and strategy they can use in their workplaces and union locals to lead winning campaigns, and lead a revival of the labor movement and working-class political power.

#MilwaukeeWI #PeoplesStruggles #classStruggleUnionism #YoungWorkersCommitteeOfTheMilwaukeeAreaLaborCouncil

In the U.S., labor and capital have a violent adversity toward one another—a struggle that continues today but is increasingly downplayed or ignored by the nation’s elites. Only war between labor and capital can induce true worker solidarity and produce a conditional peace, or armistice. In the period following the great militant upheaval of the 1930s, labor, from a position of strength, was able to force an armistice upon a reluctant employer class. An armistice by definition cannot be produced when one side is weak but requires a fighting labor movement to bring management ‘back to the table.’ Yet, the notion of ‘class war‘ is almost abandoned by the labor movement and has become nothing more than wrought political slogan which promotes discourse over insipid subjects on Sunday morning talk shows. The time has come for workers, organizers and labor advocates to prepare for class war and push beyond an armistice with capital and force a political and economic supremacy.

Many labor activists today would like to model the labor movement along the lines of their modern perception of the Civil Rights Movement. In their view, the Civil Rights movement was a pat-yourself-on-the-back triumph of public morality. But in reality the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s was one of direct action to break the back of segregation, of resistance to the violence of the local police, the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist paramilitary forces that wanted to fight to the death to defend segregation. Both the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s (including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act and others) and the Labor Laws of the 1930s, such as 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NRLA) came not from liberal Democratic legislators, but from the mass and militant movements of African Americans and the working class, respectively, in what were often more akin to insurrections than the peaceful protests or strikes more commonly thought of. For example the 1968 Civil Rights Act that banned discrimination in housing was signed days after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. which had led up uprisings in more than 100 American cities.

Peace treaties after war

From the dawn of American capitalism one group of dissidents has a long and wretched history of war and peace—the Native Americans. After the Revolutionary War the U.S. government pursued various treaties with native tribes to establish peace. Peace meaning the non-disruption of capitalist society and western expansion. However, within many treaties Native Americans agreed to submission to the U.S. in their external political affairs. Treaties became vehicles of private land interests to permanently subjugate native tribes and pave the way for ‘settlers’ or ‘pioneers’ to expropriate Indian lands.

Fierce resistance from Native Americans against sordid treaties and encroachment forced the U.S. government to sue for peace. Yet, as treaties were mismanaged, bureaucrats empowered, and military force deployed, Native American strength ultimately diminished. The same set of circumstances plague today’s labor movement. The peace treaty known as the National Labor Relations Act and the bureaucracy it created provide nothing but false security to workers. As with Native American treaties, capital has outmaneuvered its opponent and perpetuated a stealth war of subjugation.

In the present day, labor unions are protected on paper. Union density currently sits at a mere 11.3% of the entire labor force—6.6% within the private sector. Labor skeptics argue that the statistics represent an indifference of modern workers to join labor unions—an argument with some basis. Labor union proponents will accurately argue that one in five workers are fired by their employer for attempting to organize a union at their workplace. Many more workers are harassed, intimidated or co-opted by their employers before any attempt to organize is ever made. Simply put, the current NLRA system does not provide the economic advancement and civil protections it once did. The NLRA as it currently stands does not cover public sector employees, it misclassifies many workers as so-called independent contractors or supervisors, it does nothing to enforce industry-wide or multi-employer bargaining, and it restricts several types of boycotts and outlaws general strikes. Today the NLRA is nothing but an archaic officialdom that lines bureaucrats’ and attorneys’ pockets.

Peace with capital, Part I

Red Cloud, Chief of the Oglala Lakota, united all the ‘hostile’ tribes of the Great Plains into a sharp arrow to pierce the hearts of their capitalist enemies. After Red Cloud’s War, for the first time, the U.S. had to admit it was beaten and sued for peace. Red Cloud won a sovereign war against the U.S. military and negotiated a peace treaty on his terms and the terms of his people.

In 1866, Red Cloud raised an army of 2000 Sioux, Cheyenne and Arapaho warriors who attacked Fort Phil Kearny (in modern-day Wyoming) killing 80 enlisted men who were armed with the world’s most advanced artillery in what is now referred to as Red Cloud’s War. This successful siege against one of the greatest military powers sent shockwaves across the ‘civilized’ world and forced the U.S. to the negotiating table. The Peace Treaty of Fort Laramie banned U.S. troops and ‘settlers’ from the Powder River Country and the Black Hills. As soon as the last U.S. envoys left Red Cloud’s territory, Cheyenne warriors burned all military installations to the ground. It was said to be the proudest moment in Red Cloud’s life.

History has not been kind to Native American peace treaties as they have been systematically eroded over several generations because the U.S. never had any real intention of keeping its end of the bargain. On the contrary, Red Cloud assumed after the Treaty of Fort Laramie was signed that the U.S. would abandon its interest in the Black Hills. The Sioux chief even became an American statesman of sorts, traveling the country touting the then success of Native American peace treaties. Unfortunately, Red Cloud would be proven wrong when the U.S. seized the Black Hills in 1877. Chief Sitting Bull of the Hunkpapa Lakota Sioux, in what is now modern-day North Dakota and South Dakota, never trusted the “White Man’s Government” and led an sovereign movement until his surrender in 1881.

What we can learn from the history of Native Americans struggles is that our enemies do not rest and any peace or treaty is conditional and eventually will be followed by further attacks. For the labor movement, that meant the victories of the 1930s were constantly under attack as corporate America, much like the white settlers, never truly embraced the peace but viewed it as an opportunity to gather forces for a counter-attack.

Peace with capital, Part II

In the present day, capital has nearly destroyed the treaty and continues to desecrate its sacred script in order to force a strategic power-hold over labor. The labor movement’s response has been dismal if not derelict as its influence is systematically dismantled by right-wing politicians and the courts. Organized labor is disorganized, undisciplined and incapable of meeting today’s challenges.

Forty years ago the NLRA was widely recognized as providing tremendous rights and equity to millions of Americans. Most labor historians credit three violent strikes in 1934 as providing the catalyst for the NLRA: the Toledo Auto-Lite Strike, the West Coast Waterfront Strike, and the Minneapolis Teamsters Strike. These strikes were as much an insurrection against the government as they were against employer cartels. The conflicts centered on employee rights and legal protection of labor unions. Once the NRLA became law a massive influx of union membership ensued. According to Robert H. Zeiger, the decade following the establishment of the NLRA “represents the largest sustained surge of worker organization in American history.” A veteran organizer of that era called it an “era of invincibility, a time when labor was on top and management underneath.” During the post-NLRA period incomes rose for most average workers and remained stable through the postwar economic boom of the 1950s and 1960s. Union density quadrupled from 7% to 35% ,and this period was called the “Great Compression,” the antithesis of the Great Depression.

All three strikes of 1934 had stark similarities which made them successful: all were geographically centered (much like an occupation); all encompassed various workers of different employers (much like a general strike); and striking workers enlisted support from members of the community and applied countervailing force against strikebreakers and authorities. Workers employed military-like precision to secure their positions and protect their flanks. When strikebreakers moved against the picket lines the striking workers blocked the entry points. If force was deployed to break the workers’ ranks, counterforce was returned to protect those ranks. When authorities arrived to safeguard the strikebreakers’ activities the workers did not disperse and did not submit. If violence was instigated then violence was promulgated. In all instances the employer operations were immobilized and national attention was attained. Employer interests and federal politicians became frightened that working men and women could sustain picket lines with such discipline and solidarity. They were further frightened that workers were not intimidated by authorities and the brutal nature of the strikebreakers. The culmination of this widespread fear along with the political astuteness of national labor leaders laid the foundation of the NLRA.

It is easy to compare organized labor’s faith in peace treaties with Red Cloud’s in how they both understood they had reached a binding agreement with their adversaries. But truthfully, employer interests and capital, much like the U.S. dealt with Red Cloud, never had any real intention of conceding. Some labor leaders of wit like James R. Hoffa (Jimmy Hoffa) seemed to have known better while many others lost touch. Hoffa once quipped: “I've said consistently that no employer ever really accepts a union. They tolerate the unions. The very minute they can get a pool of unemployment they'll challenge the unions and try to get back what they call managements prerogatives, meaning hire, fire, pay what you want.”

The Iron Heel and capital’s offensive

In Jack London’s 1908 fictional novel The Iron Heel, readers are introduced to a dystopian society where vicious robber barons control the economic and political institutions of the U.S. and crush their opposition with an iron heel. The novel describes with incredible foresight the rise of a fascist power that begins its ascent with destroying labor unions and other leftist organizations. In the novel, London predicts the rise of worldwide fascism though he imagines it originating in the U.S., not Europe.

London’s novel illustrates a coordinated, political and legal offensive against organized labor by employer interests. London found his impetus for The Iron Heel in the early 20th century when he witnessed the rise of union-busting detective agencies and strikebreaking labor firms. The Iron Heel of today is a manifestation of conservative billionaires who fund anti-union political groups and think tanks. Capital is winning the war as most workplaces are dominated by the employer through intimidation, manipulation and coercion. Labor unions are no longer the bulwark of the working class as they have been weakened and unable to incite fear. The public elite on the Sunday morning talk shows and editorial pages have yet to view the waning power of labor unions as a national threat to economic mobility. They do not want a return of vibrant labor unions—they prefer labor peace to be upheld on the employer’s terms.

As employer interests maintain control of the legal and political institutions which govern labor rights and protections in the U.S. they grow bolder in their war to subjugate labor unions—case in point: Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan and various other examples that are not as blatant. The traditional weapon of workers to fight back against employers and capital has been the strike—there is no other act of warfare which possesses such a sharp impact. Unfortunately strikes are no longer employed as strategy to win political and economic conflicts. Take the following statistic, for example: in 1952 there were 470 strikes or work stoppages involving more than 1000 people in the U.S.; in 2011 there were 19, 17 of which were employer-initiated lockouts. Although there have been courageous strikes of late such as the Wal-Mart workers’ and the fast-food strikes, the conduct on the picket lines has been uneventful. If strikes have become mere stunts then they will remain inept, but if strikes are acts of political and economic war then they must be fought to win!

Civil disobedience examined

In 1849 Henry David Thoreau published his great American essay: Resistance to Civil Government, now commonly known as Civil Disobedience. Within his essay Thoreau draws attention to a tyrannical U.S. government which drove institutional slavery and was conducting the Mexican American War. Thoreau’s self-documented act of defiance was to suspend the paying of taxes as he did not want to finance a government he did not agree with. He spent a night in jail for his insubordination. Within his essay is the idea that if a man or women is appalled by the actions of their government, or in the case of labor their employer, then that person has an inalienable right to resist. This is the basis of all modern labor and civil rights protest. Thoreau’s essay also touches on class issues, the idea of continual revolution in the U.S. and the view that principle demands action.

Thoreau’s act of defiance is certainly considered ‘civil’ as there was no physical violence involved. Yet, this modern concept of civil disobedience is not entirely Thoreau’s actual view on resistance. It may be surprising for modern labor activists to learn that Thoreau was a strong supporter of the abolitionist vigilantes of the northern states preceding the Civil War. With the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act it became a crime for northerners to harbor and protect runaway slaves from the South. Instead, they were legally bound to return the men, women and children to the southern gangs tasked to apprehend the runaways. In response, vigilante groups materialized in the North to protect runaway slaves from the whip lashes of insubordination and chains of bondage. These vigilantes protected the slaves from reprisal and openly battled with southern posses and local law enforcement. Many of the battles became deadly. John Brown, the most famous of all abolitionist vigilantes, was the subject of another of Thoreau’s essays: A Plea for Captain John Brown.

John Brown supported armed rebellion as a measure to abolish slavery in the U.S.. He led the Pottawatomie Battle (some say the first battle of the Civil War) during which five men were killed in 1856 and later Brown became a Civil War icon during the unsuccessful raid at Harpers Ferry to start a liberation movement among enslaved African Americans. After his capture he was tried for treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia, the murder of five pro-slavery Southerners, and inciting a slave insurrection. Brown was found guilty on all counts and executed by hanging.

In his essay, Thoreau likens John Brown’s hanging to the crucifixion of Christ and defends the violent acts of Brown as “righteous.” He shuns the public opinion of his time which called for caution when dealing with the Fugitive Slave Act. He clamors for revenge of the fallen abolitionist. He writes, “When the present form of Slavery shall be no more… we shall then weep for Captain John Brown… we will take our revenge.”

American guerilla warfare

Guerrilla warfare in the U.S. has a very limited historical scope. Guerrilla tactics in the U.S. arguably began with American patriot Samuel Adams on the Boston Waterfront preceding the Revolutionary War. Adams said, “It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

Samuel Adams gained incredible fame as one of the greatest revolutionary organizers and strategists of all time. Adams was a radical deploying violence and political and economic pressure on the British bourgeois and colonial government. Marc Genest of the U.S. Naval War College examined the revolution as an insurgency campaign and identifies John Adams as the most pivotal figure of the American Revolution. According to Genest, Adams conceived the organizational structure which propelled the Revolution—the Sons of Liberty or as Genest calls it “The American Liberation Organization” (ALO). The ALO is described by Genest as a covert propaganda operation to promote instability within all aspects of British rule.

Samuel Adams did the ‘dirty work’ of the American Revolution; he led the Stamp Act Uprising, the Land Bank Riots and the Boston Tea Party and he turned a small episode involving the deaths of five unruly patriots by the hands of untested British soldiers into a national incident known today as the Boston Massacre. In Russell Bourne’s Cradle of Violence: How Boston's Waterfront Mobs Ignited the American Revolution, Adams is credited with inciting mob violence, spreading misinformation and leading a mass movement of sailors, dockworkers, rope spinners, fishermen, oystermen, exploited apprentices, runaway slaves, the unemployed and sometime pirates for open rebellion.

General Francis Marion of the South Carolina Militia Commissions and Continental Army is recognized as perfecting guerrilla warfare in the U.S.. Known as the Swamp Fox, Marion led a band of miscreants during the Revolutionary War to ruthlessly terrorize British Loyalists and regulars. The South Carolina Militia under Marion marauded throughout the swamps and countryside ambushing British supply chains and beachheads. During the last two centuries guerrilla warfare has been most identified with labor strife and strike activity. Regrettably, modern labor tactics are now heavily focused on legal actions and ‘mainstream’ political party engagement. Contemporary guerrilla tactics are now most identified with the American Tea Party movement.

The Tea Party movement has become the guerrilla movement of the 21st century. Tea Party activists are identified as rebellious, angry and reckless. The Tea Party movement is indeed a minority, both in size and scope, but an incredibly powerful minority. The Tea Party movement almost defeated President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, nearly denying the president his signature legislative accomplishment. The Tea Party movement forced a federal sequestration, nearly forced a federal default on two occasions, and most impressive of all, propelled a federal government shutdown for 16 days. The Tea Party movement has demonstrated its ability to upset the U.S. economy and intimidate elites.

The Tea Party movement has lost popularity over the past year or so. The recent loss of momentum is not because of tactical overreach, but because of its demagoguery and harshly divisive nature. To many, the Tea Party movement represents privilege, exclusion, xenophobia, selfishness and hatred. Morally speaking, the Tea Party movement is bankrupt, but when it comes to power the labor movement and the American left eats the Tea Party’s dust. Though, at one time, the American labor movement had the ability to upset the U.S. economy and intimidate political, economic and media elites. In some quarters the labor movement still remains powerful enough to disrupt geographical areas or sectors of the economy. Also, in the past few years the Occupy movement did attempt to shut down entire cities but were eventually subdued by a coordinated government intervention.

In 2009 the Tea Party nearly blocked President Obama’s entire legislative agenda. To witness a town hall meeting in the summer of 2009 during the public debate on the Affordable Care Act was a truly invigorating spectacle. Extremely motivated men and women arrived at public town hall meetings for federal politicians visibly angry, disturbed and irate. They let their public officials have it; there was shouting, accusations, pushing, shoving and the most supercilious politicians left the meetings mortified. A genuine movement was born!

The Tea Party movement was then and continues to be financiered and propagated by employer interests, conservative billionaires and right-wing think tanks. Nevertheless, it is sustained by average people. It was an unpredictable and aggressive movement in the summer of 2009 and continues to be so today—only on a grander scale. The Tea Party movement has been unapologetic and unafraid to push ahead.

The activation of the emerging immigrant movement

Immigrants, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, are the fastest growing demographic in the U.S. Whether legal or not, immigration has been a divisive issue among natural born citizens of the U.S. since at least the mid-1800s. As will be illustrated further, immigrants of the past overcame the obstacles of incendiary prejudice through unity. In the True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of mass Movements, Eric Hoffer writes, “Mass migrations are fertile ground for genuine mass movements. It is sometimes difficult to tell where a mass migration ends and a mass movement begins—and which came first… migration in the mass strengthens the spirit and unity of a movement.”

Documented in Anthony Bimba’s The Molly Maguires, a book detailing the lives of Irish immigrant Pennsylvania miners in Schuylkill County, mass immigration to the U.S. in the mid-1800s was a direct response to the Immigration Act of 1864.

The device was a success. The stream of immigration swelled, within a few years carrying between 2 and 3 million workers to this country. They poured into the mills and mines to do the hardest and lowest paid work. At the same time they composed a tremendous reserve of labor which the capitalists could use to beat down still further the standard of living of the American working class and combat the tendency among the workers to struggle for better conditions.

Bimba identifies the growing collectivity of the immigrant experience and cites that as mass immigration swelled so did the mass movement for an eight-hour workday. Therefore, mass immigration didn’t just bring willing workers to willing employers, but it also brought the hopes and dreams of the immigrant masses and with them a willingness to fight for those very hopes and dreams.

Just as it was then, today immigrant ‘cheap’ labor is used as a scapegoat for natural born citizens to blame newcomers rather than employer interests and politicians for low wages, poor benefits and high costs of living. The conflict of today is the same conflict of yesterday. Phillip S. Foner’s multivolume set History of the Labor Movement in the United States details in great depth the impact of immigrant labor in the U.S. both economically and politically. Foner describes the situation of mass immigration in the mid-1800s from the perspective of the American Federation of Labor (AFL).

The attitude of the AFL leadership toward foreign-born workers was an attitude of racism, of contempt and outright hostility, plus a reactionary policy of placing barriers to the entrance of the foreign-born to the country and to the trade unions. They advanced the thesis that these workers were unorganizable and unable to fit into the pattern of American trade unionism as exemplified by the AFL.

Foner subscribes that the AFL’s barrier to worker unity for immigrants would not be challenged until the birth of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in 1905.

Since immigrants are of minority status once they enter the U.S., an attempt must be made to interpret the predicament of a minority immigrant during assimilation. Hoffer writes, “In a minority bent on assimilation, the individual stands alone, pitted against prejudice and discrimination. In the case of a member of a minority group who wants to blend with the majority, failure intensifies the feeling of not belonging.” According to Hoffer this is why minorities are the most likely to join a mass movement. He suggests that the compact collectivity of a mass movement serves as a substitute for assimilation.

The IWW’s constitution has a motto: “An injury to one is the Concern of all.” “Race, creed, color, and sex were made no bar to membership, and any immigrant with a valid union card was eligible for immediate membership.” Immigrant workers would soon find the IWW a “congenial organization” whereas immigrant industrial workers whose foreign birth became a vehicle for ridicule in the commercial press where they were called “Hunks,” “Bo hunks,” and “Dagoes” found dignity and status within the IWW.

As the emerging immigrant population of the late 1800s and early 1900s began to unify under the compact collectivity of the Industrial Workers of the World, immigrants would soon become crucial to the labor movement and the economic vitality of the country. In three major IWW strikes: the McKees Rocks Strike, the Lawrence Strike, and the Mesabi Range Strike, it were the immigrants themselves who led the charge for better working conditions and assimilation.

In the McKees Rocks Strike in Pennsylvania there were 16 different nationalities among the 5000 workers employed at the Pressed Steel Car Co. where the strike occurred. In July, 1909, the workers began to engage in walk-outs, work stoppages and soon a full scale strike. Though the IWW leaders were involved in the McKees Rocks Strike, according to Foner, it was merely in a supporting role. It would soon become evident that these foreign-born workers were entirely capable of maintaining a strike.

A group of foreign-born strikers had experiences in revolutionary and labor struggles in Europe. They realized early in the strike that only a vigorous, military strategy would achieve victory. These strategies, though used often in Europe, were new to the American labor movement and would influence the conduct of strikes among the foreign-born workers for many years to come.

After six weeks of bitter strife these workers returned to the Pressed Steel Car Co. with their demands met, recognition of the union, and most importantly, with their dignity intact.

The strike proved foreign-born workers were not, as so many AFL leaders repeatedly insisted in excusing their failure to organize them, an ‘ignorant mass,’ “content to work under conditions no decent human would tolerate.” It proved foreign-born workers were militant strikers and had much to contribute to the American labor movement.

Foner’s conclusion would again be demonstrated in the Lawrence Strike at the textile mills in Lawrence, Massachusetts. Foner would say of the enduring strikers: “These neglected, downtrodden masses—foreign-born, unskilled, half of them women—had proved to the entire labor movement that they were capable of maintaining the discipline, spirit, unity, and faithfulness to unionism, essential to victory. They proved, too, that theirs was the true Americanism.”

The Mesabi Range Strike in the iron-ore mines of northeastern Minnesota was another example of immigrant miners representing 35 different nationalities leading a major strike. Although the two previous strikes arguably resulted in victories for the workers and Foner concludes that the Mesabi Range Strike comparably did not, he still contends that it was a display of immigrants enduring in the struggle to both assimilate and secure their economic power.

The American Crystal Sugar lockout, Long Shore Workers and a book about strikes

In the summer of 2011 workers at American Crystal Sugar Co. rejected a concessionary contract offer from corporate management and the lockout of 1300 union workers commenced. American Crystal Sugar Co. is located in the remote areas of northwestern Minnesota and eastern North Dakota. The company shut out its union workforce and moved in a scab force provided by a ‘labor firm’ from the Twin Cities. The labor firm is called STROM Engineering and keeping up with its fascist overtone, many union workers called these scabs “STROM Troopers.” The STROM Troopers were moved into the rural towns adjacent to the five large sugar refineries and placed in motels and provided transport by white vans to and from the sugar beet refining operations. It was indeed a scab army much in accordance with Jack London’s The Iron Heel. Many union workers became confused as to what they should do and whether they had a union force to match the ever growing scab army.

A labor lockout is referred to as ‘management’s strike.’ A lockout can occur under the NLRA when the union and company management are unable to reach a collective bargaining agreement. The employer has the legal right to lock out its workforce and reject their labor. The only legal difference between a lockout and strike is that the employer cannot permanently replace the locked-out workers. Nevertheless, an employer can continue a lockout indefinitely. Morally, however, a lockout appears to carry a great deal of betrayal and resentment from the locked-out workers towards the employer. This is regrettable because it creates an overriding sense of victimhood and humiliation. The workers at American Crystal Sugar were victims in every sense of the word, but they soon found that victimhood has a genuine elasticity with the local news papers and the surrounding communities.

In the modern labor movement it is challenging to gain public sympathy for workers who are mistreated by their employers. The editorial pages, career politicians and leading academics are mostly apathetic to the plight of non-professionals and many times downright hostile to manual laborers. In the case of unionized workers of the so-called professional class, the elite carelessly snub those who can hypothetically quit their jobs if they are unsatisfied. Workers in the private sector have often maligned the pay and benefits of workers in the public sector because private employers are continually eliminating pensions and employer-paid paid health coverage.

As time tolled, the locked-out union workers at American Crystal Sugar lost the contract dispute and after a fifth vote elected to return to work under the original concessionary contract offer. After 18 months the workers’ struggle for public sympathy failed. The fight was lost not with roar but a whimper. The rural communities became polarized and the union became demoralized and demobilized. If you’re going to pick a fight then you better fight to win. This lack of fighting to win is why organized labor continues to lose as both an institution and a movement. Who wants to side with victims?

In the summer of 2011 there were two more items of immense interest that could have taken the American Crystal Sugar lockout in a different direction. Joe Burns’ book Reviving the Strike was published only a few months before the lockout commenced and its tracts were foretelling of the crisis facing not only the workers of American Crystal Sugar but of the entire labor movement. The book is a bold analysis and commentary of organized labor especially during an era of least resistance. Without a doubt, organized labor is apprehensive about its own survival and whether it will remain relevant with emerging industries, changing demographics and concessionary inclinations. The book’s central premise is simply this: if labor doesn’t even fight then how can it ever hope to win? The locked out workers at American Crystal Sugar took the first step and picked a fight, but lacked an authentic agility and adaptability to maneuver. In Reviving the Strike, Burns identifies the legal dilemmas of the modern labor movement under the Taft Hartley restrictions and provides a plan for organized labor to maneuver around such limitations. Labor law is broken in the U.S. and organized labor must no longer rely on the conventional methods of concerted activities!

In addition to Reviving the Strike, in the summer of 2011 the West Coast Long Shore Workers (ILWU) set a resounding example for the entire labor movement. The ILWU Local 21 raided the port of Longview Washington and disrupted operations for the multinational conglomerate EGT Development. Local 21 cited contract violations by EGT as its core grievance. ILWU members organized mass pickets of hundreds to block trains from bringing grain to the EGT terminal and dumped grain from train cars, cut brake lines on trains and smashed windows in a guard shack. Throughout the confrontations, more than 125 protesters were arrested. In the end, the ILWU beat back EGT’s violations and won an acceptable agreement.

There was not, and has not been since, a more inspiring demonstration of power by the modern labor movement. The contract dispute that the ILWU had with EGT was very similar to the dispute that forced union workers to vote down the concessionary offer at American Crystal Sugar. The only difference being the ILWU was willing to fight to win!

Disappointingly so, the ILWU Local 21 is the exception, not the rule. The rule is for organized labor to resolve grievances in the courts or at the ballot box—despite the legal system’s slow and tenuous results and our democracy’s continued failure. In modern times aggressive labor tactics have yielded to legal adjudication within the sphere of our litigious society. In the present day workers are too afraid—too afraid to organize and too afraid to strike. It’s not necessarily because the penalties of anti-union employers are too lax or strike opposition too great—it’s because workers are have not been readied to act!

What is to be done? Labor politics

The labor movement is married to the modern Democratic Party only out of mutual self-interest. The Democratic Party is no longer responsive to the needs of America’s working class. It’s time to recognize that a labor party or workers’ party is the only way to go. There is a possible solution that may assist the labor movement in taking over the Democratic Party and creating a real labor party in tandem—it’s called dualism. Dualism allows the labor movement to formulate a political party but also support the Democratic Party. Much like the Irish Republican Army, the American labor movement needs a political wing—not just clever lobbyists or flush political action committees. The concept of dualism declares that a candidate for public office must win a direct primary ballot by registered labor party members before said candidate can receive a full party endorsement. This process is completely internal to members of the state, federal and local labor parties. The labor party endorsed candidate must still get the endorsement of a major political party to make it to the general election ballot in all 50 states. Major labor unions that participate will endorse a candidate based on whether said candidate gets the endorsement of the labor party.

Labor unions and activists can openly recruit members to serve on national committees, state committees, and district and precinct committees. The labor party must be inclusive for all Americans and have a national convention, state conventions, district conventions and precinct conventions. The party will need a democratic platform formed at the regional levels. Candidates will be endorsed at convention, but must win a mail or electronic primary ballot by all registered members of the respective regional parties. National endorsements will hinge on a national primary ballot by all party members.

Dualism can provide for a real political party to have key influence on major political candidates. Moreover, labor unions can then campaign internally for the labor party candidate rather than the usual Democratic Party archetype. Internal registration process, direct ballot for endorsement, a real democratic platform and party conventions will provide credibility for an apathetic working class.

Labor action

Key strikes and lockouts in the U.S. must become a major priority with the labor movement and for all organized labor institutions. The directing and motivating of picketers, raising money for strike and action funds and the generating of community engagement has become more important than expertise in labor law. Local unions conducting a strike or suffering a lockout need direct assistance to provide leadership on all aspects of effective strike strategy. National labor organizations and/or other labor organizations must provide capacity for rapid deployment of a strike force or action network to direct Local unions or rank-and-file members involved in major work stoppages.

During the 1934 Toledo Auto-Lite Strike brilliant strike tacticians such as Reverend A.J. Muste, Art Preis and Louis Budenz, all leading radical groups, converged on Toledo to direct and build momentum for the strike. Much like the IRA, the American labor movement needs a paramilitary wing—not just a team of lawyers or public relations experts. In 1936 the UAW formed paramilitary groups who wore tactical-style uniforms and would form union caravans that traveled vast distances to reinforce picket lines when employers brought in strikebreakers. It is alleged that Michigan Teamster leader Jimmy Hoffa, already Detroit’s toughest labor leader, was so impressed with the UAW’s militant fighters that he asked to join his local union with the UAW.

An outside team of seasoned strike tacticians who can move into a territory and hold local union officials and picketers accountable plus direct the actions, the fundraising, and the community engagement is a necessity in an era of concessions and lockouts. Most important of all, the strike force must be able to push the limits of modern labor law which restrict labor union activity during work stoppages. They must not be afraid to engage in economic disruption.

Pushing the limits All labor unions must develop a legal defense fund

Before America’s greatest surge of unionization after World War II, workers had little protection from violent strikebreakers, Pinkerton detectives and police brutality. The legal system favored employers during labor disputes and most striking workers were jailed for vagrancy or disturbing the peace. Politicians, judges and police were all in the pockets of employers large and small. Organized crime figures provided muscle for employers under their ‘protection’ rackets. During labor disputes mass arrests were common for striking workers. Miraculously, however, workers fought on and built an enduring labor movement.

Today average workers need legal assurances before they will act. Therefore, in order to encourage direct action labor unions must institute a legal defense fund for workers who are on strike or locked out. Workers on strike must qualify for legal assistance for civil and criminal incidents involving strike activity.

To receive coverage in the defense plan, a striking worker must be involved in an incident relating to a strike, lockout or organizing effort. The defense plan will cover all striking or locked-out workers who are dues-paying union members. Members of the plan will have 100% coverage regardless of the final cost of representation in addition to full legal coverage for separate incidents no matter how many occur. Legal protection is not a perfect solution for all angst-ridden workers, but it can provide confidence for those who are concerned about civil and criminal penalties.

Direct action training

Direct action must have three main objectives: 1. to create a significant disturbance with the intention of generating awareness for a specific injustice, 2. to disrupt an operation, system or organization with the full intent of interrupting an active procedure or process, 3. to intimidate or pressure an organization or group into submission.

Modern labor activists are admittedly near experts at manufacturing a public spectacle, but have lost all willingness to disrupt or intimidate opposition.

In the 1930s, Minneapolis Teamsters Local 574 initiated one of the greatest strikes of the Depression Era, in addition to perfecting the most brilliant of strike tactics in American history. The most significant aspect of the 1934 Teamsters Strike was how Local 574’s leadership urged its followers to stockpile clubs, batons and bludgeons. From that point forward the strike was no longer a mere dispute, but war itself. Flying pickets were formed and sent from the union headquarters. They patrolled the streets in a vast fleet of cars and trucks to intercept all scab vehicles and unauthorized movements. A committee of 100 strikers was established to devise overall strategy.

Labor control

In 1934 the West Coast Waterfront Strike was not a strike entirely over economics, but primarily a strike over labor control. The leaders of that particular strike knew that if they could control the hiring process at the ports that they could then control all the work on the docks. The west coast seamen and longshoremen unions’ greatest triumph in 1934 came from the institutionalization of the union hiring hall. Outside the building trades, union hiring halls have become a thing of the past and labor control is firmly in the grip of employer interests.

The time has come for labor unions to look beyond the narrow prerogatives of the collective bargaining contract and to begin concentrating on the training and hiring process of tomorrow’s workers. At this very moment universities and colleges are banding with employer interests to create training programs and apprenticeships. New workers are becoming increasingly disposable in the modern economy and labor organizations have not begun to grapple with the issue comprehensively. Furthermore, there is widespread agreement that the number of college graduates taking unpaid internships has significantly increased since the 2008-2013 Great Recession. Behind Wal-Mart, the second-largest employer in the U.S. is Kelly Services, a temporary worker service. Lastly, according to the Labor Department data, roughly 284,000 college graduates are working minimum wage jobs—double the number who worked such jobs before the Great Recession.

The labor movement, its institutions and other labor organizations have a major stake in the future of the nation’s workforce and must develop a concrete plan for labor union supported training programs, apprenticeships and certifications to promote stronger labor contracts, greater job security and further participation in labor union activity.

Epilogue: The way we win

The assault on organized labor by capital is only going to intensify in the coming years and labor must fight to preserve what is has accomplished. Instead of playing victim, union workers must become fighters and must hold each other accountable. The only way labor is going get respect in America again is if it sets an example of strength.

When the current labor statistics demonstrated a 90-year low in national union membership it became imperative to foster a dialogue on a beleaguered labor movement. Most readers can agree that labor is at a critical moment and must elicit sincere introspection. It is appropriate to draw parallels between our time and the period before the passage of the NLRA—to examine the events, strategies and tactics of striking men and women from 1934. In Richard Maxwell Brown’s Strain of Violence, he concludes, “The last great spasm of violence in the history of American labor came in the 1930s… that accompanied the successful drive to unionize the automobile and other great mass production industries. A strain of labor violence survives…”

The way labor wins the war against capital matters as workers cannot use force unless they have faith in their principles. Labor cannot win the class war with martyrdom or on its past glories. Remember that labor’s most legendary martyr, Joe Hill, wrote in one of his last telegrams to Bill Haywood, leader of the Industrial Workers of the World, “Goodbye, Bill, I die like a true blue rebel. Don't waste any time mourning. Organize!”

Gus Froemke is a second generation trade unionist and Teamster member in Minneapolis. Froemke has been involved with national, state and local organizing campaigns for the past decade.

#UnitedStates #ClassStruggle #classStruggleUnionism

“I think that the improvement to the TeamCare on Sept. 4 is a big difference to the TeamCare they offered in the Tentative Agreement that was offered in May. I fully believe than these changes were brought on because of the Vote No movement,” commented Mark Timlin, founder of the 4000-plus member “Vote No On UPS” Facebook page.

A re-vote on seven rejected supplements and riders will be mailed out on Sept. 18, according to the IBT.

Although the national agreement passed by a slim 2 to 3% margin, the agreement cannot take effect until all regional and local agreements have been settled, so those eligible to re-vote, including Teamsters in the Central Region, Ohio, Michigan, Local 243, Metro Philly and Western Pennsylvania have the ability to vote no again.

Keep voting no

While health care gains were made, another no vote in the Central States Region, among others, will be necessary to fight the rest of the health care concessions, improve pay and full-time jobs for insiders and improve language on harassment.

Those who voted no in the initial round were angry with the cuts to health care, lack of additional full-time jobs, harassment, and longer wage progression scales for new workers, who would make less for longer periods of time than ever before.

The Vote No movement seems likely to continue strong, because although health care improvements were made, the health care plan is still worse than the previous contract. For instance, it includes a deductible in the last year, something UPS Teamsters never had to worry about before.

Teamsters currently in the TeamCare plan will not be given the same benefits, extending a two-tier system beyond wages and into union-run health care. Workers currently in the plan will begin paying deductibles immediately. Two-tier systems create different compensations for employees doing the same work, often based on seniority or part-time vs. full-time status. They are used by companies to break down solidarity among workers and violate the union principle of equal pay for equal work.

Other concerns include language on harassment. For instance, Article 17(i) in the Central Supplement is a loophole management uses to fire employees and it needs to be removed.

Ken Hall backtracks

UPS Teamsters were particularly upset with this concessionary contract at a time when UPS posted record-breaking profits of over $4 billion and broke another profit record in the first quarter of 2013, posting well over an additional $1 billion.

In response to rank-and-file Teamster outrage at the concessions, Teamster General Secretary Treasurer Ken Hall has backtracked on his initial claim that health care negotiations, as well as other stipulations covered in the national agreement, were a done deal. On Sept. 4, a new mailing was sent to the membership detailing significant improvements to the Teamster-run plan. Many of those who voted against the contract in the first round of votes see this as a victory, forcing the union to recognize and do something about the tens of thousands concerned about contract concessions.

For thousands of UPS Teamsters across the country, the struggle continues to stem UPS management's attacks on the wages, benefits and working conditions of drivers and warehouse workers and to hold Ken Hall and IBT President Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. accountable to the members. The Vote No movement has already beat back some concessions and will continue the fight into the next round by urging another ‘no’ vote.

#MilwaukeeWI #Teamsters #UPS #classStruggleUnionism #JimmyHoffaJr #UPSContract #KenHall

Asheville, NC – SITEL workers and community members came out on the afternoon of Sept. 5 for a lively picket, supporting SITEL workers’ right to organize. Picketers held signs opposing SITEL’s union busting practices. One read, “United we bargain – divided we beg.”

SITEL operates 29 call centers in the U.S., as well in 25 other countries. The corporation is notorious for low wages and poor working conditions. At the call center in Asheville, brave workers are taking a stand and organizing a union drive with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). “We face a corporation known for its rabid anti-union stance. SITEL is a global poverty broker that strategically opens sites based on a predatory business strategy of exploiting vulnerable labor populations for profit,” says Ken Ashworth, an employee at the facility.

What began as a struggle over grossly inadequate restroom facilities has developed into a yearlong struggle for respect, better benefits and good wages.

“My wife Shana has worked for SITEL for over three years now, and still only makes $9.50 an hour,” said Ed Williams. “It’s bad enough that we have to decide if we feed the family or pay for gas for her to get to work.” As a slap in the face, rather than increasing workers' wages so they do not have to make such hard choices, SITEL has an employee sponsored food panty for its workers. All the while the CEO receives bonuses of $750,000 a year.

“We organized the picket today because SITEL is trying everything it can to scare us from organizing,” says union organizer Sarah Buchner. “They have brought in ‘union avoidance consultants’ to hold captive audience meetings as a means to spread misinformation and create fear about the role of unions.”

Rebecca Smith and Pat O’mara, who identified themselves as ex-Teamsters, are ‘union avoidance consultants.’ SITEL is paying them over $3,000 a day to try to convince workers that a union will not help them and create divisions between the workers. They are lying to the workers, and they are bought and paid for by SITEL.

On Sept. 5, during the shift change from 4:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m., SITEL workers, together with dozens of friends, family and community supporters, held a picket outside the call the center to show the company that they knew exactly what unions are for – organizing and fighting back.

Not long after the picket assembled, SITEL management called the police, hoping they could scare the picketers into silence. In the face of this scare tactic with threats of arrest, the union supporters stood their ground. After a long discussion between leading workers, IBEW representatives, the city attorney and the police, the police finally admitted that the workers had the right to picket on the sidewalk off SITEL’s property and the demonstration continued. As cars passed they honked in support and drivers raised their fists in solidarity.

In August, SITEL settled several unfair labor practice claims, one regarding maintaining and enforcing an illegal social media policy. The full text of the settlement can be read here (http://organizesitelasheville.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/sitel-posts-settlement-notice-on-labor-charges/). Notice of this has been posted on bulletin boards at the Asheville location and on the company intranet nationwide.

#AshevilleNC #unionBusting #classStruggleUnionism #IBEW #SITEL

Minneapolis, MN – On August 21, 75 people attended a dinner in solidarity with American Crystal Sugar workers who have been locked out by their employer for over a year. The event was also a fundraiser; over $9,000 was raised to support the Crystal Sugar workers who have gone without pay for over a year to stand up for their jobs and their union. The event was sponsored by AFSCME Local 3800, the clerical workers union at the U of M, and Next Wave, AFSCME’s young workers’ organization.

August 1, 2012 marked one year since the workers at Crystal Sugar in the Red River Valley area of Minnesota and North Dakota were locked out. Their bosses wouldn’t budge during contract negotiations and insisted on forcing drastic cuts on the workers. At the end of this June, the members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM), rejected the employer’s contract offer for a third time. Management wants to double their healthcare costs, ignore seniority when filling new positions, and contract work out to non-union workers.

These workers have held strong for a year against this unfair contract. Workers from North Dakota never received unemployment insurance during the lockout and the Minnesota workers’ unemployment is beginning to run out.

Troy Anderson kicked off the event with music written about the lockout. Mark Froemke, who is an American Crystal worker as well as president of the AFL-CIO West Minnesota Area Labor Council and representative of BCTGM union, inspired the crowd with his impassioned and down to earth appeal to stand up and fight for workers and union rights. Becki Knapper Jacobson, who has worked at Crystal Sugar for over 30 years, also shared her first hand perspectives on the lockout. Joe Burns, author of the influential book Reviving the Strike, gave a perspective on the history of lockouts and reminded the crowd that labor has won the most when willing to go beyond the limits of restrictive labor laws that outlaw basic forms of solidarity. Cliff Poehler, Treasurer of AFSCME Council 5, gave an impassioned appeal to support the locked out sisters and brothers from BCTGM. He also called on the workers to take direct action to reverse the ongoing decline of the organized labor movement. Michelle Sommers, President of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1005, reiterated the need to fight back against the bosses.

According to Heather Hemmer of AFSCME Next Wave, who helped organize the event, “Solidarity is important for an event to be successful. The sugar worker fundraiser was successful because we had solidarity among unions and workers. We must remember we are in the fight for social and economic justice together. It is up to us to help each other out. After all, it is the people who have the power – the power of change. Thanks to everybody who helped make the sugar workers event a huge success.”

#MinneapolisMN #classStruggleUnionism #Capitalism #AmericanCrystalSugar

Milwaukee, WI – A few blocks from Brewers stadium, picketing in hot sun, 150 plant employees of Palermo's Pizza are out on strike.

These workers, many Latino, walk the picket line each day, demanding job reinstatement, the recognition of the Palermo’s Workers Union and a just contract that addresses health and safety concerns, among other things.

Striking worker Roberto Silva says, “We want a union and we demand justice.”

A national boycott of Palermo’s Pizza is taking off, along with an online petition, which can be signed here. A strike fund has also been set up here.

The strikers are fed up with the way they are being treated. Intimidation, harassment and unsafe working conditions brought problems to a tipping point. Ten days ago, on June 1, these workers walked off the job and now face termination. Using termination and immigration audits as tactics to stop the union organizing, Palermo’s Pizza has not fazed the striking workers.

Solidarity is pouring in from Voces de la Frontera, faith and labor leaders, local labor unions, the national AFL-CIO and Occupy Milwaukee. A petition has been filed with the National Labor Relations Board. There will be elections for a union July 6.

Tiffany Strong of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) brought water to the picket line. “Every worker should have the right to organize and create a union. We should boycott Palermo’s until they agree to allow these workers to unionize and give them the respect and the rights they deserve. This is not just a workers’ fight or immigration fight, but a fight for humanity.”

Peter Adamczak of Occupy Milwaukee has been at the strike several days, helping to mobilize people and bring supplies. “Occupy supports this strike because it is a direct challenge to those who feel emboldened after Scott Walker's victory against the recall. This strike is a sure sign that the working class has not given up!”

#MilwaukeeWI #Labor #classStruggleUnionism #PalermosPizza #pizzaWorkersStrike #immigrationRights

Chicago, IL – On May 6 over 100 people attended a panel at the Labor Notes conference called Solidarity Forever: The Labor Movement, Political Repression and the Fight for Civil Liberties. The panel focused on the repression against Carlos Montes and the Anti-War 23 and explained why it’s important for the labor movement to take a stand against political repression.

The panel was facilitated by Richard Berg, a long-time rank and file Teamster and labor movement leader in Chicago.

Carl Rosen of the United Electrical (UE) union spoke about his union’s history of being attacked viciously during the political repression in the 1940s and 50s, and their commitment to standing up for civil liberties because of that history. UE is one of only two of eleven left-led unions that survived the McCarthy era, when the union’s leaders faced subpoenas to “Un-American Activities” – hearings, jailings, firings, blacklisting, union decertification and all manner of repression. Because of this history, Rosen said that the UE now passes a resolution at all of their national meetings, rededicating themselves to the struggle to defend civil liberties.

Hatem Abudayyeh spoke about the FBI raid on his home on Sept. 24, 2010 and the subpoenaing of 23 people to a grand jury witch hunt due to their international solidarity work, particularly support for Palestinian self-determination. None of the Anti-War 23 have cooperated with the grand jury, at risk of being jailed for contempt for their refusal to participate in the grand jury.

Long-time labor activist Paul Krehbiel from Los Angeles spoke about the repression against Carlos Montes, who is being targeted because of his decades of activism. Montes faces trial May 15 on four bogus felony charges, after his home was raided and ransacked by Los Angeles Sheriffs and the FBI last May. Krehbiel has attended most of Montes’ pre-trial hearings and protests, so he detailed many of the outrages so far. Krehbiel also spoke of Montes’ long history of union organizing and participation in labor struggles, in addition to his more well-known activism in the Chicano movement and anti-war movement.

Cherrene Horazuk of AFSCME 3800 spoke about why labor activists must defend their right to travel to other countries to be able to hear firsthand about the impacts of U.S. foreign policy and corporate-sponsored repression against trade unionists and others. She also talked about the historic role labor has played in defending and winning struggles for freedom of speech and association and how labor must take a stand when these rights are under attack.

Tom Burke of the Committee to Stop FBI Repression (CSFR) ended the panel by emphasizing the urgency to support Carlos Montes as his trial approaches on May 15. CSFR is asking people to call Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley at 213-974-3512 with the message, “Drop the charges against Carlos Montes,” and also to sign the online petition that sends your message to Cooley and several others.

Labor Notes is a biennial conference for rank-and-file union activists to form analysis and make plans for building stronger working class fight backs and to fight to transform unions that are corrupt or don’t organize workers to fight back. This year’s Labor Notes conference took place May 4-6 in Chicago and was attended by over 1500 people, with dozens of workshops and panels.

#ChicagoIL #LaborNotes #CarlosMontes #classStruggleUnionism #CommitteeToStopFBIRepression

This is the largest WFTU Congress, with participants from nearly 100 countries, including 13 observers from the United States. They were joined at the opening ceremony by more than 3000 workers from Greece for a political and cultural event that featured working class songs from around the world, thunderous chants and slogans of international solidarity and a video celebrating the 65-year history of the WFTU. The WFTU is a grouping of trade unions from more than 100 countries with a membership of more than 70 million workers. Its aim is to build a militant, class-oriented, internationalist, democratic trade union movement.

A highlight of the opening event was the speech by WFTU Secretary General George Mavrikos, where he discussed the conditions the people of the world are facing. On the one hand, the deep economic crisis of the capitalist system and the escalating war against workers has caused massive unemployment, misery, poverty and migration. Around the world, capitalist governments, in facing the insurmountable difficulties in managing the crisis, have launched an unprecedented attack on the labor rights and achievements that have been won through years of workers struggles. Salaries, social security and collective union contracts are all under attack. Unemployment and poverty are on the rise. Privatization of health, education and other services are being carried out all over.

The working class around the world has strongly resisted these anti-labor initiatives, with protests, massive strikes and other events. WFTU unions organized protests in April, 2009 in 45 countries and in September, 2010, mobilizations were held in 56 countries, under the slogan, “We will not pay for their crisis.” In New Delhi, alone, more than one million people participated.

Mavrikos called on participants to soundly condemn the imperialist aggression and wars being carried out around the world, including the current bombing of Libya. The imperialists claim that they are protecting civilians, when their real interest is controlling the oil fields and gaining access to sub-Saharan Africa and its great mineral wealth.

In closing, Mavrikos asked event participants, “What type of international trade union movement does the global working class need? A movement that is compatible and allied with the capitalist system to ‘modernize it?’ Or a movement that will represent the working class and its allies and will be in conflict with the capitalists to overthrow the exploitation system? A movement that will support the imperialist wars in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Yugoslavia? Or a movement that is against imperialist and unjust wars, and that will struggle for peace and friendship among all people?

A movement that seeks to unite the working class to cooperate with the monopolies and multinationals in the line of class collaboration? Or a movement which will follow the line of class struggle and unite the entire working class based on its class interests?

A movement that support’s Israel’s policy, which slanders Cuba, defames Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Iran and North Korea? Or a movement of proletarian internationalism that is firmly on the side of Palestinian people to have its own homeland, to support the Cuban revolution and defend the right of every people to decide alone on the present and future?

“A movement of bureaucratic elite with luxurious offices and rich salaries? Or a movement whose local, national and international leadership are identified with the working class, poor peasants, youth, women, immigrants and indigenous peoples?”

To resounding applause by all present at the opening ceremony, Mavrikos stated, “For the WFTU, our answer is clear: We continue the path of class struggle, against imperialism and capitalism. For a world without exploitation of man by man. For a future world that belongs to workers!”

#AthensGreece #Athens #Greece #classStruggleUnionism #WorldFederationOfTradeUnions #WFTU

Nearly every major airline corporation has gotten, or is trying to get, out of their existing union contracts. Government, particularly at the state and local levels, is demanding wage freezes and givebacks. The steel corporations are refusing to meet their obligations to retired workers.

The backdrop to this accelerating war on working people is the prolonged period of economic decline and stagnation. U.S. capitalism is stuck in a protracted crisis of overproduction – the capacity exists to produce far more goods and services than the corporations can profitably market. The result is more layoffs and endless economic restructuring, where the leanest and meanest corporations emerge as the winners.

And the leanest and meanest in corporate America want more. So they come to our unions demanding concessions. They point to some other corporation in their industry, at home or abroad, that pays lower wages or has fewer benefits, and then say they cannot compete if the proposed concessions are not accepted. The result of going along with these concessions is self evident – a downward spiral, pitting worker against worker in a race to the bottom. And the corperate bosses laugh all the way to the bank.

These are challenging times. The government promises us a 'war with out end.' Unemployment is going up. An ongoing economic crisis is falling hardest on oppressed nationality workers: African Americans, Chicanos and Latinos, Asians and Pacific Islanders.

It is vital that the most active, militant and foresighted in the labor movement come together and build a movement that rejects concessions. The heads of corporations are not worried about our fate. Many of us are just getting by, and now these fat cats come along and say we should make do with less. We cannot afford a mindset that puts the profits of the companies we work for ahead of our familes and our selves. The truth is, the rich have plenty of cash and resources. If times are bad, and the economy is down, let them pay for the crisis. We can't afford to.

Unfortunately, more than a few union leaders have bought in to the approach that puts the corporations' interests ahead of everything else. These bureaucrats tell us we need to accept these concessions. They tell us that we need to care more about the owning class that we do about ourselves. Why should we care about a group of parasites, which lives off our hard work?

We need to put our unions on a class struggle basis. We need unions of, for and by the workers, that take up the fight against the discrimination and stand for equality. We need to put an end to the situation where many of the unions are little more than businesses run for the benefit of bureaucrats. We need unions that will fight.

In the face of an avalanche of demands for givebacks, takeaways and concessions, activists and organizers in the labor movement need to take a hard line. We should insist our unions do likewise. In the process of doing so, those of us who have a common view of beating back concessions need to be communicating with each other and building organization – inside and outside the existing union structures – that stands for real resistance to employer demands.

#UnitedStates #Editorial #Editorials #concessions #classStruggleUnionism

As Fight Back! goes to press, Teamsters (IBT), Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) have quit the AFL-CIO.

For now, UNITE HERE, which combines needle trades, hotel and food service workers will not leave and continues paying dues to State Federations and local labor councils.

The departing unions are part of the ‘Change to Win Coalition’, which also includes the Laborers, UNITE HERE, the United Farm Workers and the Carpenters Union. The Carpenters Union left the AFL-CIO long before the convention.

The break up puts about one third of organized labor outside of the AFL-CIO.

The Debate that Wasn’t

The ongoing decline of the size and influence of the trade union movement provides the backdrop for the split. In the private sector, less than 8% of workers now work under union contracts.

Though many AFL-CIO convention delegates watched it unfolding, their disbelief and anger filled the convention when four of the largest unions remained outside. Chicago radio stations in the African American and Latino communities were flooded with calls from workers wanting to know if they would still work under collective bargaining agreements. Across the U.S., workers in union halls and workplaces are asking what this means. Workers are left wondering, because the debate preceding the convention was restricted to a small layer of top union officers. The debate never reached the rank and file union members.

Though narrow, the issues debated are important to everyone who is concerned about the direction of the labor movement. One camp, the Change to Win Coalition, is led by SEIU’s President Andy Stern. The other camp is headed by the AFL-CIO’s John Sweeny, a former president of SEIU.

The problems of organizing the unorganized, union restructuring, along with the role and nature of political action are common concerns of all workers. Unfortunately, 90% of union workers had no idea these debates were taking place.

Class Struggle Unionism

On the eve of the AFL -CIO Convention, Chicago trade unionist Joe Iosbaker, leader of the Labor Commission of Freedom Road Socialist Organization, spoke to a packed hall. Labor and solidarity activists from across the U.S. listened closely.

Iosbaker stated, “Sweeney’s failures have led to a revolt in the palace. There is not much to say about the ideas on either side of this debate. But the debate itself provides an opening to raise the need to transform the unions. The unions need to become organizations of class struggle; they need to oppose the corporate class at home and U.S. imperialism abroad.”

“Some people say the way forward is democracy. We certainly support union democracy. We fight for union democracy in order to have worker-run organizations and to more effectively wage class struggle – not just to have fairer rules for replacing one set of bureaucrats with another.”

Iosbaker added, “The way forward for the labor movement is to revive class struggle unionism. We need unions to be fighting organizations, not dues collection machines. It means reviving tactics of earlier generations – of the 1910s and the 1930s. During those periods, workers did not content themselves with going on strike and holding up picket signs. They used every tactic in their arsenal, from sit-down strikes to shutting down production at the plant gates or to taking the fight industry or class wide. Class struggle unionism also means solidarity unionism, where unionists go all out in support of key struggles when they break out.”

Iosbaker also noted that labor movement needed to take on discrimination faced by African American, Chicano and Latino, Asian and other oppressed nationality workers. Unless this is done it will be impossible to build a labor movement that reflects the actual composition of the U.S. working class.

Stern and Sweeney, as well as the other union leaders on both sides of this debate think that labor management cooperation is not only possible, but good. In an April issue of HRO Today, a magazine that promotes outsourcing, Andy Stern stated, “The sum total of the wage race to the bottom is that this generation of American workers will be the first ever to have a worse quality of life than their parents. To try to stop the wage drops, unions have been an anti-competitive force, protectionist. But what union wages should be is like electricity, which allows their users [employers] to operate more efficiently with better quality.”

In various articles and speeches, Stern explains his belief that corporations should accept unions because unionization will aid them in their business plans. The Sweeny camp holds the same view and work life itself proves them wrong.

Political Action

The $200 million spent backing Democrats in the last elections is a source of dismay for many in the labor movement. Some progressives in and around trade unions are hoping the Change to Win split will lead to a break with the pro-big business Democratic Party. More likely it will lead to ‘bi-partisanship,’ meaning supporting Republican and/or Democratic candidates for narrow opportunistic reasons.

In a post-convention interview with the Detroit Free Press, Teamster head Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. speaks of supporting Republican candidates. Historically the IBT has a track record of backing Republican candidates, such as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Hoffa supported a Republican attempt to drill oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. It was Hoffa’s ploy to gain power and money through union membership. Hoffa would run the Teamsters’ hiring hall for the corporations and the government. The plan failed.

For its part, the American Federation of State County and Municipal Workers (AFSCME), one of the pillars of the Sweeny-AFL-CIO camp is spending a half million dollars to back the Republican candidate in New York City’s mayoral race. Similar to an earlier ‘go it alone’ approach by Dennis Rivera of SEIU 1199 in supporting a Republican candidate for governor of New York, these strategies only benefit the narrow interests of one union over the others.

Independent political action that is consistently pro-worker and advances the interests of the oppressed is not on the agenda of the Stern or Sweeny camps.

That said, it was clear in the pre-convention debate that Stern placed more stress on organizing the unorganized as a road forward, while many of the unions in the Sweeny camp stressed changing the political climate.

Labor Unity

The end of the AFL-CIO as it was presents some challenges for militants in the labor movement as it is – particularly for those active in Central Labor Councils (CLCs).

In a July 28 memo John Sweeny orders, “We must reject efforts to pick and choose the places and terms of ‘partnership’ and support. These unions are proposing a form of free

ridership: No financial or other support for the national AFL-CIO, no responsibilities or obligations under the AFL-CIO Constitution, but selective buy-in at central labor bodies of their choosing.” In other words those who quite the AFL-CIO are to be kicked out of local labor councils and statewide federations.

For his part, Stern could care less about the CLCs and knew full well that the split was likely to tear them apart.

In a number of cities where the CLCs have become a rallying point for militants and progressives, moves are being made to defend them. The key is to defend the right of affiliation to the CLCs for the local unions that have left the AFL-CIO.

The Future

This new situation presents challenges and opportunities for those that want to advance the labor movement. The main thing however, is to build a labor movement, that is of and for workers. Collaboration with management has gotten the movement where it is today – facing a crisis in the face of an employer offensive.

On the issue of class struggle unionism, Joe Iosbaker points out, “Those unions which in the last decade or two have started down this path of class struggle unionism, however fleetingly – such as the Staley workers, the Detroit newspaper workers in the mid 1990s, the mineworkers at Pittston coal in the early 1990s, and Local P9 at Hormel in the 1980s or the workers at UPS, or the Charleston Five of the International Longshoremen’s Association – have shown us the path to a renewed labor movement. The path of a militant, class-conscious labor movement is the only road forward.”

#ChicagoIL #Analysis #AFLCIO #AFLCIOSplit #classStruggleUnionism