What If Labor Opposed War?

[davidswanson]

I think the peace movement and every justice movement in the United States should simply overwhelm Congress members during the next two months with one and only one demand: Pass the Employee Free Choice Act in January. This is, of course, the bill that the labor movement has been trying to pass for years, and that Democrats in Congress and President Elect Obama have committed to making law: http://aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca

If the Democrats pull out victories in senate races in Alaska, Minnesota, and Georgia, they will have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, which could be expanded by appointing some Republican senators from states with Democratic governors to plum jobs, as well as by giving Washington, D.C., representation in our federal government. Even 58 or 59 senators, rather than the magic 60, will render the filibuster excuse pretty weak. The labor movement can certainly persuade one or two Republican senators not to filibuster. So, there will be no excuses available to the Democrats. If they hear the urgent demand for the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) from all of us, they will be compelled to pass it.

The EFCA puts teeth behind legalizing the right to organize a union. We need it because a strengthened labor movement will almost certainly bring great benefits to workers, and because it just might bring benefits to our broader civil society. Peace groups need to push the EFCA so that labor unions owe peace groups a favor.

For all the effort the peace movement has put in, and for all the influence the antiwar message has had on pubic opinion (without which Barack Obama would not have been elected), the peace movement has almost no ability to influence Congress or the president elect. Take a look at Obama's short list for possible appointees to the Pentagon, or his vice presidential pick, or his chief of staff: there's nobody within a mile of the new administration who opposed the war. In stark contrast, check out the names under consideration for Secretary of Labor: they actually know and support the labor movement.

Were the labor movement to put its growing strength behind a demand for peace, the chances of success for the peace movement would increase dramatically. And, of course, lives would be saved, relations improved, and the economy benefitted. Within the labor movement there has been a great deal of peace activism, led by the tremendous work of U.S. Labor Against the War http://uslaboragainstwar.org but, while many unions have formally passed resolutions opposing the war, none has put major resources into lobbying to end it.

What could the labor movement gain from cutting back spending on wars and the military? What if it were to gain thousands of new members? This could be made to happen. Just as, with Paygo, Congress required that any spending be balanced by cuts to avoid deficits, we could create a more targeted requirement. Congress could require that any public spending on the creation of green energy jobs be matched by cuts in spending on wars and the military, and require that any cuts in war and military spending be matched by new spending on green energy jobs in unionized employee-owned cooperatives -- specific cooperatives set up and unionized by each national union. I'm sure there are several other ways that this could be done; the point is to make a shift of resources from killing to living happen in such a way that unions are motivated to push it forward.

While Obama proposed a relatively small scale investment in green energy jobs, at least until he deleted his agenda from his website, he did not explain how he would pay for it: http://changelost.com Congressman Barney Frank pointed out a few weeks ago that , unless we want to cut every useful program, we will have to cut military spending -- he proposed a cut of 25 percent. On Monday, the Boston Globe reported that "a senior Pentagon advisory group, in a series of bluntly worded briefings, is warning President-elect Barack Obama that the Defense Department's current budget is 'not sustainable,' and he must scale back or eliminate some of the military's most prized weapons programs."

Of course, it is Congress that must do that. The role of the president in our system of government is simply to execute what the Congress legislates. But you get the idea. There is nothing radical about proposing military budget cuts. What would be radically beneficial to us all would be to create a means by which labor leaders can see the direct benefits of doing what must be done.

If you're imagining that all of this is not needed because our new president-elect will fix everything for us, I would urge you to shake off that belief by January, or sooner if possible, and certainly by March when the occupation of Iraq will turn six and a Democratically controlled Congress will send a budget funding the continuation of the war to a Democratic president. The loudest war opponents will then be libertarians and others who favor peace but not justice. We would be wise to raise our own voices earlier and more strongly and to recruit allies into a broader movement with a coherent long-term vision of social change.

[Radical Activist]

1. I'm dissapointed by the attempt to spread cynicism in this article.

I know its fashionable among the left to say that the Democratic nominee or President is never liberal enough. But I don't find your characterization of Obama's investment in green jobs as "small scale" to be accurate. And claiming that he "deleted his agenda from his website" certainly makes Obama sound like a cunning flip flopper, doesn't it? I call bullshit.

I went to his website just now. Its still there and it has this paragraph about a LARGE scale investment in green jobs:
"Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future."
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy

He does say how some of it will be paid for:
"The Obama-Biden cap-and-trade policy will require all pollution credits to be auctioned, and proceeds will go to investments in a clean energy future, habitat protections, and rebates and other transition relief for families."

If you want to push Obama to the left on an issue that's fine. But next time do it without the distortions. This is the kind of Naderesque line of attack that does nothing but make people cynical and disengaged. It makes people start talking about the "lesser of two evils" and drop out of electoral activism. That may be a good tactic for Greens or those who want people to give up on electoral politics in favor of direct action tactics, but it really hurts efforts to accomplish positive change in the long run. Cynicism is the virus that eats away at the progressive movement.

[davidswanson]

2. the campaign's over

i was referring to the transition website

i consider that relatively small scale

while i don't like the pollution auction idea, you're right that it is an idea

if you can't drop electoral activism now, with a year, eleven months, and two weeks to go, and instead engage in the job of citizen, when the hell can you?

[Radical Activist]

4. Engaging in the job of citizen

doesn't need to involve misleading and cynical portrayals of Obama abandoning his campaign promises even before he takes office. Can't you encourage Obama to do more without taring down his current proposals?

You do know this is the right wring strategy, don't you? They can't wait for everyone to be disappointed in Obama and decide that he abandoned his unrealistic campaign promises. At least give him a chance to take office before you adopt their meme.

[WilliamPitt]

3. How much would Labor be affected

...by a deep cut in dockside shipyard/supply/repair jobs?

Question to ask before asking Labor to get on board en masse. I don't know what percentage of shipping jobs are Labor, or what percentage of those are involved in war-related operations. But if there are any, you'll be asking them to lose those paychecks.

Passing 2 cents, bro. Hope all is well. Excellent argument.

[Sherman A1]

5. Like anything else it's a balancing act

Yes, shipbuilding, repair, etc are hopefully union jobs, but also hopefully would be bridge building and road work. A new light rail system built by Union labor as well would do much for a local economy both immediately and in the long term. I have always thought defense spending equates to insurance. Necessary but not something I look forward to either paying or using, because if I use it something bad has happened. A necessary evil in life so to speak.

I am Union and while I want a strong defense (find someone who says they don't want a strong defense structure). I want good roads, sewers, bridges, schools, fire departments, police, etc. I want retail workers to be union just like I am fortunate enough to be (or at least have a fair chance of getting a union, without a bunch of hoops). I want service employees to have unions and everyone who wants decent wages and benefits to have the opportunity to do so.

I think we need to cut defense spending by at least 50%, kill a bunch of dumb programs like the F-35 (if our airframes are worn out, then let's build more f-15 and f-16's) and mothball about 4 Aircraft Carriers. Other spending should shift to computer system defenses, intelligence, increasing the use of drone aircraft, benefits and training for the troops and special operations for surgical strikes.

My 2 cents

:hi:

[davidswanson]

6. yeah there'd be some of that

but on west coast at least the ILWU would go for it if any union would

[TygrBright]

7. There is a long history of trying to link labor and anti-war activism...

...but to my knowledge it has never been more than sporadically, locally, and partially successful. There are competing interests at stake. War creates a great many high-quality jobs and generally increases the leverage of labor in the policy and economic arenas.

I don't think it's likely that organized labor would commit to an anti-war stance, even though many individual labor leaders and organizers might be anti-war.

But I wish it were so.

wistfully,
Bright

[pberq]

9. War creates jobs

As a local union officer, I fail to see how sending $10 Billion per month to Iraq helps the labor movement in the long term.

Perhaps you can point me to some articles or statistics that show how war helps the labor movement.

It is my understanding that spending money on weapons and ammo is bad for the economy, not to mention paying outrageous wages to private contractors.

[TygrBright]

11. Someone has to manufacture the guns, ammunition, etc.

Historically, factories that manufactured war materiel were part of organized labor's strength. The manufacture of armored vehicles, troop transports, airplanes, ration kits, even combat boots and uniforms created manufacturing jobs that paid well and were often unionized.

There was a vigorous and active anti-war movement worldwide in the wake of WWI, during the era when organized labor had tremendous will and energy. They tried their damndest to get the facts across to the labor leaders, but got nowhere even before 1929. For a good look at the long efforts of the anti-war movement in connection with labor, there are several fine books--Google "history" and "anti-war" and "organized labor" on Amazon.com.

If you think people always vote and support their own best interests (i.e. workers supporting a productive, peace-oriented economy,) just examine recent American history. You don't even need a book for that.

I'd like to think it could be changed on a massive scale, but history seems to demonstrate pretty conclusively that even a very vigorous, well-organized, well-funded effort at getting labor into the anti-war camp succeeds only partially and locally.

This is NOT an argument for not trying. I think it's certainly worth the effort, even small successes matter. But it hast to be undertaken with a clear-eyed appreciation of history and economic realities, or it becomes so much energy wasted or even applied counterproductively.

regretfully,
Bright

[pberq]

8. Good article, David - I hope this can happen nt

[bigtree]

10. State, Justice, and Defense

These appointments are critical. I'm looking to see whether these positions will be filled with folks who reflects clear change from the critical attitude Obama expressed in the campaign toward these offices' mismanagement and enabling of unwarranted military aggression abroad and criminal behavior within and without the exiting administration.

It would be smart for all of the Obama administration to be singing the same tune on these critical responsibilities, but I expect the primary leadership to come from Obama . . . though I strongly agree that we need to encourage the new administration NOW to make certain the folks carrying out his edicts reflect the values and intent of those of us who voted him into office. I don't want to see another Cohen at Defense to appease some faction of republicans or Democratic conservatives.

The sorry-ass right-wing (Dem and republican) were wrong on Iraq and can't come to grips with their epic, criminal blunder; they allowed the present police state in America (c/o Bush and Cheney) to take root and flourish; and they're bent on continuing their paternalistic pimping of terror in their cynical protection racket.

It would be a devastating waste of the moment for Obama to allow folks who really don't believe in the same things we do to take charge of these three important cabinet agencies. I don't want 'balance' in his administration, I want an administration who believes in what was promised on the campaign trail.

The only way to get there is through continued pressure on our legislators and with every instigation of democracy at our disposal. There's really no point in waiting until after these decisions and choices are already made to complain or offer guidance (as you stated well in your article).

[Omaha Steve]

12. How soon they forget about Labor, till they want something (my brothers & sisters gave up pay etc)

I am proud to say several AFSCME locals & the International office have participated in wars protests. The last protest I went to against the war had several friends of mine from Labor here in Omaha.


http://txlaboragainstwar.org/



An organization of working people for peace and justice

Texas Labor Against the War (TXLAW) is a Texas affiliate of US Labor Against the War, a national coalition of over 170 unions, peace & justice organizations, and community groups, representing more than a million union members.


http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/

http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?preview=1&cache=0&id=16063

http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?preview=1&cache=0&id=16063



NOW AVAILABLE - Documentary Video:
Meeting Face to Face:
The Iraq-US Labor Solidarity Tour

http://meetingfacetoface.org/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/02/us/01cnd-port.html

Dockworkers Protest Iraq War

By JOHN HOLUSHA
Published: May 2, 2008

Thousands of dockworkers at West Coast ports stayed off the job on Thursday in what their union said was a call for an end to the war in Iraq.

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union said more than 25,000 members in 29 ports stayed off the job. The action came despite an order issued Wednesday by an arbitrator directing the union to tell its members to report for work as usual in response to a request from employers.

“Longshore workers are standing down on the job and standing up for America,” Bob McEllrath, the union’s president, said in a statement. “We’re supporting the troops and telling politicians in Washington that it’s time to end the war in Iraq.”

The scene at most West Coast ports was quiet, without any scuffles or confrontations. The cranes used to unload container ships stood idle and few trucks were lined up outside gates.

Guillermo Durell, 45, a truck driver, was at the Los Angeles-area port of Long Beach. “I got up at 6 a.m. to drop a load off,” he said. “When I got here the security guard said ‘Drop this, but that’s it. We’re all leaving.’ ”

Mr. McEllrath said the walkout was not ordered by the union’s leadership, but was the result of a “democratic decision” made by the rank and file in February to demonstrate on May 1, a traditional day for labor activism.

FULL story at link.

Is this enough to make my point?