>>> Stephen E Philion <philion at hawaii.edu> 02/28/00 02:53PM >>>
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Charles Brown wrote:
>
> EDITORIAL: AFL-CIO & IMMIGRANT WORKERS
>
> The U.S. labor movement's drive to organize new workers,
> especially low-wage workers, is right on target. Any new
> step in this direction must be applauded. The AFL-CIO's new
> position on the rights of immigrant workers is, for the
> most part, such a step.
> But there's more.
>
> Take the colonized nation of Puerto Rico. Workers in
> Puerto Rico are not U.S. workers. In January the AFL-CIO
> hailed the Labor Department's announcement that the unions
> had brought in 265,000 new members in the United States in
> 1999. It turns out, however, that 65,000 of these new union
> members are workers in Puerto Rico. The AFL-CIO should have
> pointed out that to count them as U.S. workers negates the
> Puerto Rican nation's struggle to free itself of colonial
> status. That would have been a show of solidarity.
************** Stephen P.: I doubt that WW asked militant trade union activists in Puerto Rico what they think of the AFL-CIO proposal.
**************
CB: I wouldn't be too sure about that . However, the editorial doesn't say that militant Puerto Rican trade unionists oppose the AFL change of position on migration.
********* Is WW saying that it is better that workers from Puerto Rico not be allowed the same organizing rights as US citizens? I would think this would be desirable to the labor movement in PR, even for those who advocate independence.
*********
CB: Seems like you are reading something into the editorial that is not there. All I read was that the AFL ignored the self-determination of Puerto Ricans when it lumped them in with U.S. workers.
**********
>
> Then there's China. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney has
> engaged in a full-throttle Cold War campaign of lies and
> invective against this socialist nation. The AFL-CIO and
> member unions make all sorts of wild claims in their drive
> to bar China from full access to world trade. They claim,
> for example, that unions are illegal in China. In fact, 103
> million Chinese workers are represented by industrial
> unions, a greater proportion of industrial workers than
> have union rights in the United States.
>
On the face of it this is true, but a Marxist analysis would unpack the nature of the trade unions these workers are members of, its depleted budget that renders it capable of doing little in the way of organizing or protecting workers, and the virtual non-role it plays when workers face widespread cases of management looting public assets...
************
CB: US trade unions play a virtual non-role when U.S. workers face widespread cases of management looting public assets. Think of the Chrysler bailout, the S and L bailout, the billions in tax abatements, the national debt payments to the banks and financial institutions for that matter. Haven't heard a peep out of U.S. labor about all that and much, much more looting of public assets.
You fail to unpack the nature of U.S. trade unions in your criticism of the comparison of them with Chinese unions.
**************
The AFL-CIO leadership often does make wild claims in their quest to prevent China from entering the WTO. However, it does workers little in the way of help to make wild claims about the level of representation experienced by workers in China today, be they in the state sector or private sector. This only leads to confusion about reality, hardly a basis for solidarity between working classes of different countries.
***************
CB: Except when you look at the class collaboration of U.S. unions the comparative claims are not that wild. Your argument here depends upon an unrealistic view of the "independence" of U.S. unions.
*************
> . Labor should take a lesson from what happened with
> the overturning of socialism in the former Soviet Union.
> There, life for workers has seriously deteriorated. Pay and
> working conditions have gone from being some of the best in> the world to among the worst. Industrial accidents and
> pollution have risen sharply. This and worse is what would
> happen to workers in China if the socialist state were
> dismantled.
>
This is happening right now in China, at a less advanced pace than in Russia, but certainly occurring apace. Denying it will get us none too far.
************
CB: I don't see a denial of it. I see a warning that anti-socialist thrusts such as that of the AFL will aggravate it. Your main thing is you are against the Chinese government ,but on this thread you can't make your argument without asserting unrealistic praise for U.S. unions. Given their record , U.S. unions are in no position to criticize Chinese policy. *************
> The AFL-CIO's statements on China have left the impression
> that the U.S. labor federation is hostile to both the
> Chinese people and socialism. That is certainly how workers
> in China see it. That alone should be reason enough for the
> AFL-CIO to reconsider what it is saying and doing on China.
>
Certainly the AFL-CIO should reconsider its stance on China and on the WTO as well. However, its stance should be based on factual understanding of what is actually happening in China to China's workers (across sector, gender,...), not appeals to vague numbers that tell us little about the real nature of class relations as they exist in China today.
************
CB: And your implicit "comparison" of China and the U.S. shouldn't be based on unstated appeals to no numbers whatsoever on U.S. unions, whereby you tell us nothing about the real nature of class relations as they exist in the U.S. today. And therefore your effort to make it sound like U.S. unions have a basis for attacking China fails.
To the U.S. unions it might be said, let he who has not sold out to the U.S. ruling class throw the first stone.
CB