We wish, but the only US union that has taken a public stand against the war on Iraq is UE, I think:
***** UE Says, 'No U.S. Invasion of Iraq´
RALEIGH, N.C.
Delegates to the 67th UE Convention on Sept. 19 put the union on record in opposition to a United States invasion of Iraq, and instead called for "a genuinely multilateral diplomatic approach to the Iraq situation, sanctioned and directed by the United Nations."
No delegates took the floor in opposition to the Iraq resolution, which carried on a voice vote.
The resolution "Oppose U.S. Invasion of Iraq" asserts that the Bush war threat is linked to administration plans to boost military spending, enhance Republican electoral fortunes and assist the oil industry. "None of these will help to prevent terrorism, but all of them will hurt workers in the U.S. and abroad," the resolution says.
Arguing that "an invasion of Iraq is not in the interests of workers," the UE statement points out the substantial costs in lives and resources of an invasion and the likely occupation to follow. The resolution also observes that most U.S. allies and even prominent Republicans regard unilateral U.S. action as unwise. "While there is an urgent need for genuine multilateral action to eliminate weapons of mass destruction world wide, this has become less likely as we alienate our necessary allies over the question of Iraq," the UE statement declares.
The resolution was submitted to the convention by the UE General Executive Board (GEB), which consists of officers from each of the union´s geographic regions and the three general officers. Two of these district leaders spoke on the resolution.
Peter Knowlton, the president of District Two (New England and eastern New York state), reported to the convention that the resolution generated "a good discussion on the GEB." Knowlton said, "I´m concerned that Bush Administration is still indicating it will go alone." His concern is heightened by the possibility that the draft will be reinstituted; he has two sons, ages 22 and 19.
The history of the Iraq issue is based around oil, and U.S. corporations´ need to control that oil, Knowlton said. "Bush is the single biggest threat to me and my family," he declared.
John Lambiase, District Six (western Pennsylvania, western New York and West Virginia), suggested, "this nation is way too quick to wage war and too slow to wage peace." He added, "I don´t feel any more secure because of the war in Afghanistan."
Here is the full text of the resolution:
OPPOSE U.S. INVASION OF IRAQ
Despite the lack of any evidence linking the Iraqi regime to the September 11 terrorist attacks, George Bush is pressing for an invasion of Iraq. All U.S. allies except Great Britain, and even many in Bush´s own party, are opposed to this. Scott Ritter, former head of the UN Weapons Inspection team in Iraq, has denounced Bush´s outlandish claims about the threat posed by Iraq to the rest of the world. Military experts warn than an invasion will inevitably be followed by a costly, years-long occupation, leaving large numbers of U.S. military personnel in a hostile environment.
An invasion of Iraq is not in the interest of workers. As in the Vietnam War, working people will be forced to pay for this war with our lives and our pocketbooks. The government will continue to cut funds for already economically distressed states and vital government programs. The administration is jacking up next year´s military budget by $48 billion, bringing it to a staggering $383 billion. Programs that benefit working people and the poor are being threatened by budget cuts, and yet the airline industry receives a bailout of $15 billion and corporate America receives $25 billion in tax cuts.
While there is an urgent need for genuine multilateral action to eliminate weapons of mass destruction world wide, this has become less likely as we alienate our necessary allies over the question of Iraq.
The Bush Administration is cynically using inflated claims of Iraq´s threat to vastly increase the military budget, to help his friends in the oil business control oil production in the Middle East, and to boost his own popularity and prop up the electoral fortunes of the pro-corporate Republican Party. None of these will help to prevent terrorism, but all of them will hurt workers in the U.S. and abroad.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THIS 67TH UE CONVENTION:
1. Opposes a U.S. invasion of Iraq, but supports instead a genuinely multilateral diplomatic approach to the Iraq situation, sanctioned and directed by the United Nations;
2. Encourages UE at all levels to educate our members on the history and issues underlying the disputes in the Middle East. <http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/newsupdates/news.php?topicid=87&pageID=uenews&pagetype=article> *****
On the other hand:
***** ...Leading the attack is the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), the shipping lines' West Coast bargaining group. Always aggressive, the PMA is this time backed by the West Coast Waterfront Coalition, a group that includes big importers such as Wal-Mart, Target and the Gap. The PMA wants to use technology to eliminate some 1,500 clerks' jobs and eliminate the hiring hall that is the core strength of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), traditionally among the most militant and progressive unions. Some $300 billion worth of cargo--equivalent to 30 percent of U.S. gross domestic product--passes through ILWU members' hands each year. Employers dislike having a strong union in such a critical role--and the PMA was infuriated in the 1990s when the ILWU invoked a clause in its contract to shut down the ports in solidarity with death row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal and again to support the Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization.
This time, the PMA wanted a strike or lockout--because it believes it can count on Bush to help break union power. Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge has threatened the union with the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act--an 80-day cooling off period and possibly the use of troops to move cargo--raising the specter of Ronald Reagan's firing of 11,000 striking air traffic controllers in 1981.
Taft-Hartley is a serious threat. But by repeatedly postponing action, the ILWU undermined its only leverage. If union action did prompt Bush to impose Taft-Hartley, it would further expose Bush as a corporate front man--and compel all of organized labor to take up the fight against what union officials used to call the "slave labor law."
Instead, the ILWU extended the contract after its expiration on July 1 into September. ILWU President James Spinosa publicly offered to surrender about 1,000 clerks' jobs--but the PMA wouldn1t take "yes" for an answer. When Spinosa finally sounded the alarm against government intervention, he packaged it as an appeal to patriotism, proposing that the ILWU be responsible for inspecting cargo for terrorist threats. The IWLU rallied behind the slogan, "Fight terrorists, not American workers"--a lurch backwards for a union that has prided itself on international solidarity action in support of workers from South Africa to El Salvador. Moreover, wrapping labor in the flag plays straight into the hands of the employers and a government willing to use "national security" as a pretext to break union power. Indeed, "national security" is Bush's pretext for attempting to deny union and civil service protections for workers in the Department of Homeland Security.
Anyone in the labor movement who believes that patriotism offers protection for unions should consider the case of the International Association of Machinists (IAM). Following September 11, IAM President Thomas Buffenbarger declared that "[IAM members] will be building the F-15, F-16, F-18, and F-22s 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."
Instead, it is the employers who seek to "impose a new reality" on the IAM. The union is caught in a vise between concession-seeking airlines and Boeing, which used 9/11 to carry through 30,000 layoffs of commercial aircraft workers. Management wants to increase workers' health insurance costs, keep pensions miserably low and subcontract union jobs at will. Like the PMA, Boeing sought to provoke a strike. With airline orders collapsing, the company would prefer to shut down production for a few months to save costs and train subcontractors--and then starve the IAM into accepting a union-busting contract. As IAM chief negotiator Dick Schneider put it, "Boeing put forward a job-killing, money-stealing, retiree-mugging offer."
However, the union did little to mobilize a "no" vote on the proposed contract. Apparently, the IAM expected Boeing bosses--whom union leaders like to call "partners"--to pull back from the brink before the old agreement expired. But Boeing didn't budge. Union officials then scrambled to call for a rejection of the deal and strike authorization in an August 28 membership vote. Next, as votes were being cast, IAM leaders announced that a federal mediator had "ordered" new negotiations and that ballots wouldn't be counted. In fact, there was no legally binding order, and Boeing had made no agreement. IAM members returned to work with no contract and negotiations in limbo.
If IAM officials hoped to use a powerless federal agency to escape Boeing's onslaught, another far more powerful arm of the government is helping the airlines attack the union. The Air Transportation Stability Board (ATSB), created as part of the congressional airline bailout bill after 9/11, requires that airlines seeking federal loan guarantees cut "labor costs"--a euphemism for concessions. US Airways and United Airlines have both used ATSB loan applications to try to extract concessions from the unions. Pilots at bankrupt US Airways did agree to wage cuts, while IAM mechanics turned them down. Management then asked a bankruptcy judge to impose the wage cuts anyway, just as Continental Airlines did in the 1980s. At United--where the IAM and other unions took concessions in 1994 in exchange for an Employee Stock Ownership Program (ESOP), management wants a staggering $1.5 billion in concessions per year....
<http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=10&ItemID=2365> *****
Here's a minority voice in ILWU:
***** ILWU, Local 10 REPORT
The following report is by Jack Heyman, E. Bd. member of Local 10 and participant in numerous work stoppages in support of Mumia, against scab shipping, a point man for the ILWU in extending solidarity for the Charleston 5.
--David Walters
At the ILWU Local 10 membership meeting on Sept. 20th in San Francisco, we had an extensive discussion on Bush's declared "war on terrorism", Congress' rubber stamp approval and how it will affect longshore unions. At the end of the discussion, Local 10 voted overwhelmingly to send a letter to Congresswoman Barbara Lee commending her for her courageous sole vote against the war. In a sense, it was a workers' referendum on the undefined, unlimited "war against terrorism"....
<http://redwoodpeace.org/ilwu.html> ***** -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>