Labor's Failure in D.C.

[Chris Kromm]

Add another voice to the choir of people tremendously disappointed to see so
little labor turn-out for A16. I'm getting pretty sick and tired of people
denouncing the N30/A16 activists as "young white kids." If the leaders of
many groups -- AFL-CIO, large civil rights organizations, etc. etc. -- had
any spine and committed to putting muscle behind these marches, they would
have been MUCH more diverse in terms of race/class. Don't tell me that the
leaders of many of these groups were "left out" of the organizing or somehow
didn't know -- if they had WANTED to be there, they would have been.

On a more positive note, this weekend I also attended a conference/reunion
for SNCC (Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee) in Raleigh, North
Carolina (yes, I was doing a *lot* of driving). Hundreds of activists young
and old came together to discuss SNCC's legacy. They also passed a
resolution supporting the A16 protests, noting that they would have been
there had it not been for their meeting.

CK

----- Original Message -----
From: Jay Moore <research at neravt.com>
To: <marxism at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: Labor's Failure in D.C.


> I would have to agree with Daniel.  At the legal rally on Sunday, a lot of
> platform air space was given to name speakers from various labor unions --
> primarily "leaders" and officials, including the AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka
> (formerly head of the UMWA) and the head of the Steelworkers Union, rather
> than rank and file activists.  As usual at these kinds of things, I was
> listening to the speakers with only one ear.  In general, they seemed to
be
> laying down a pretty good rap  -- about uniting against the global race to
> the bottom, etc. -- and lavishly praised the youth and students for
leading
> the way in the oppositional movement.  However, from my close observation
of
> the crowd at the legal rally, which I circulated through a lot taking
> photos, and on the subsequent march, the AFL-CIO did diddly-squat to bring
> out the membership for this one.  I saw a sprinkling of union jackets and
> T-shirts.  But they were relatively few.  The largest labor contingent I
> saw -- maybe 30 or 40 folks -- were from the United Electrical Workers --
> which, of course, was disaffiliated from the AFL-CIO during McCarthyism.
I
> saw some folks from the Labor Party, but even they didn't seem to have
much
> of a real presence.  Sad but true.
>
> I've been reading Paul Buhle's new book (which I greatly recommend) on the
> duplicity/treason of the old AFL-CIO leadership starting with Gompers.
> Gompers could sometimes talk like a radical, too, when it served his
> interests (even George Meany could).  But action is what counts.  We have
> yet to witness much positive action from this new leadership.  Instead in
> this D.C. instance, and following right along in the racist footsteps of
> their predecessors (see Buhle), they organized a separate, xenophobic type
> of demonstration against admitting China to the WTO.  That's what they
> mobilized workers for.  We should be glad, I guess, that they only could
> mobilize 15,000.  No doubt the Gore factor is important, too.  But look at
> the racism of this labor aristocracy.
>
> best,
> jay
> http://www.neravt.com/left/
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Daniel O'Connell <dpoconnell at philosophers.net>
> To: <marxism at lists.panix.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 11:22 AM
> Subject: Labor's Failure in D.C.
>
>
> > carole gallaher wrote that:
> >
> > "There was also a strong union presence.  I saw people with UAW, SEIU,
and
> Steelworkers t-shirts."
> >
> > I could not disagree more, and I think this was one of the most
> disappointing aspects of the past week's events: To be sure, on Sunday,
> there were people present who _happened_ to be members of labor (SEIU it
> seemed, for the most part), but Labor _as such_ was not a presence there.
> >
> > They chose to expend most of their energy in xenophobic ranting against
> China earlier in the week (as some on this list have already noted), and
on
> Sunday, Sweeney and the troops stayed home, for the most part.
> >
> > I'm not saying that the protests (both legal and illegal) were not a
> success: I think they were, for the most part. But our ranks could have
> grown by 20-30,000 if Labor had made a conscious decision to turn out en
> masse as they did in Seattle. Why they did not turn out remains to be
> stated. I would propose the reason in four letters:
> >
> > G-O-R-E.
> >
> > You can't endorse Al Gore and then blithely sally forth against the
World
> Bank and the IMF. Someone ought to be pinning Sweeney to the wall and
asking
> him, "Which side are you on?" He is moving to the left only in the
> imagination of The New York Times.
> >
> > But I suppose I'm preaching to the choir at this point, so I'll stop...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Daniel Cahill-O'Connell
> > OCONNELL at CUA.EDU
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com
> > FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net
> >
>