Labor Reactions to the War
Shut up and work

Article taken from Justice, the paper of the US-section of the CWI

Trailing in the wake of the bipartisan war drive launched by George "Dubya" Bush, US and world labor leaders offered open support and no alternatives to the plans. Union leaders may express condolences and support for the victims of the attacks in the US, but offer little real aid to staunch the loss of jobs, wages or other benefits. Where is their opposition to Bush's call for using billions from Social Security to fund the war drive?

As striking Minnesota State workers were attacked by pro-war Governor Jesse Ventura (a former military commando) for being un-patriotic, little was heard from labor leaders in support of the strikers. BART workers, like many others, were hustled into a contract settlement with the argument that under the circumstances of a possible war drive it was a bad time to strike.

As almost a million aviation, transport manufacturing, hospitality, immigrants, and other union members lose their jobs, the October 8, 2001 response of AFL-CIO President John Sweeney was to publish ads in the New York Times and other newspapers saying "We support the aggressive, considered military action ordered by President Bush ..." and to call on Congress to fund the bipartisan war drive as a means to support employment.

Thomas Buffengarger, head of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, expressed his support for the pro-war policies by bluntly stating, " [IAM members] will be building the F-15, F-16, F-18, and F-22's that will impose a new reality on those who have dared attack us. For it is not simply justice we seek. It is vengeance, pure and complete."

Meanwhile Stephen Yokich, head of the UAW, announced the settlement of the strike against tank manufacturer General Dynamics saying the UAW would not have struck if troops had been on the ground, using the tanks UAW members make. Fortunately they did not return to work until after voting on their contract. The Teamsters, recovering their Reagan-era attitude, called for war against all states harboring "terrorists."

The Politics of Co-option

Leo W. Gerard, International President, United Steel Workers of America, expressed a slightly more measured support saying, "Our union demands justice ... that all available resources be used to track down and punish those individuals and organizations responsible for this cowardly act. However, care must be taken not to repeat this most recent tragedy by harming innocent men, women, and children who, because of geography, find themselves in harms way."

Leaders of several unions expressed support for a war, but opposition to scapegoating of their members here at home. Among them were Andrew L. Stern, President, Service Employees International Union. He said, "It is clear that those responsible for the attacks on September 11 must be found, and targeted ... At the same time, we cannot condone attacks here at home on Arab Americans."

The United Farm Workers and SEIU have made plans for marches to help fight anti-Arab and anti-immigrant bashing.

Immediately after the events of 9/11, messages of sympathy and solidarity poured in via phone, fax and e-mail to AFL-CIO headquarters. They came from trade union organizations in Algeria, Turkey, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and elsewhere. Additionally, Workers' Left Unity, an underground labor organization in Iran, condemned the 9/11 attacks.

"We consider this action against humanity and peace," declared a shocked Shaher Sae'd, general secretary of the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions, in a letter faxed to AFL-CIO president John Sweeney. Sae'd extended sympathy and support to "American people and their families, the victims of this coward-shocking event."

Anti-War

From among international unions, opposition to the bi-partisan war drive was also expressed. The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions circulated its statement of "Oppose terrorism! Oppose war! Start a movement to build peace!"

US union support for the war drive is not unanimous nor is it made with the open explicit support of union members. Nowhere was it said that union members voted to support the pro-war statements, made by mostly un-elected union leaders. In fact it was in several union bodies where members voted that opposition to the war was clearest.

On September 20th, International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 10 (San Francisco) members held an extensive discussion on Bush's "war on terrorism." Local 10 voted overwhelmingly to send a letter of congratulations to Representative Barbara Lee for her vote against Bush's war powers.

New York City hospital workers' union, SEIU Local 1199, the first union to openly oppose the Vietnam War, passed an anti-war resolution at its Delegate Assembly. Dennis Rivera, president of the 220,000 member local, announced its opposition to a war stating, they were opposed to "... launching a war against any nation because of the actions of a few."

The San Francisco Labor Council, by delegate vote, passed a resolution stating, "... we declare our resistance to efforts to use this tragedy to engage in military actions...". They went on to endorse the local anti-war demonstrations of the following weeks.

As part of the process to build massive opposition to the war, many such votes will have to be conducted. They can serve as a base for what should be a national referendum on the bipartisan war policy.

[ Top ]

Labor Reactions to the WarShut up and work

Article taken from Justice, the paper of the US-section of the CWI

Labor Reactions to the War
Shut up and work