"It should be noted that many labor organizations, including the AFL-CIO, have not supported the march [MWM], and many, including the AFL-CIO, have not yet taken a position on the war. The AFL-CIO's magazine has yet to acknowledge in print that there is a war."
and
"Notably absent from this list are such progressive outlets as Democracy Now, Mother Jones, In These Times, the Village Voice, the American Prospect, and LA Weekly and the rest of the "alternative" weeklies, none of which has done anything more on this story [labor antiwar] than what Fox News has done: completely avoid it."
That substantial and growing sectors of the organized US trade union movement take positions well in advance of those it held in the Vietnam War era is one of the features of the present political landscape to be most optimistic about. Now, if we can just have a joint mobilization called by the antiwar trade unions (with or without the AFL-CIO tops) who would mobilize their members around some relevant labor issue (there's plenty, take your pick), to which the antiwar movement would also be invited as "support". Then have the mobilization convert itself to some degree into an "antiwar march".
"Ironically", perhaps, this scenario may be more likely under Bush v 2.0 since trade union tops are generally reluctant to mobilize what they advertize to their members as "friendly" Democrats. OTOH, the Seattle example shows that if it is the "right" labor issue, it may be possible that some labor tops might see a need to pressure a President Kerry.
Only, can the East Coast do this, for once? I have a dream: a big antiwar labor Seattle in Washington, D.C. MWM is just the dry run.
>From Evil Counterpunch: http://counterpunch.com/swanson10082004.html
-Brad Mayer