S.F. socialists will run in upcoming city elections

Scan page 9

SOCIALIST ACTION MAY 1988 g On Nov. 8, 1988, San Francisco's working people will get a chance to vote for two of their own. Socialist Action is proud to announce that Joseph Ryan will run for Board of Supervisors and Sylvia Weinstein will run for Board of Education.

San Francisco is facing a budget deficit of $179 million. The current Board of Supervisors, all Democrats, are loyally standing beside the corporations and banks their party represents. Based on a request by labor-endorsed Mayor Art Agnos, the Board of Supervisors voted 10-1 to put a ballot initiative (Prop. B) on the June ballot calling for a wage-freeze for all city workers.

Hundreds of lay-offs are expected within the next few months, while the city's rich are actually getting more tax-breaks and "incentives" in order to make San Francisco profitable for the few at the expense of living standards and jobs for the majority of its residents.

Joseph Ryan ran for mayor of San Francisco last fall, and spoke to hundreds of unionists and students. Everywhere he spoke, he warned that the candidates of the rich would have no choice except to force working people to pay the city's bill. Now that the Democrats and Republicans have made their intentions clear, Ryan will put forward a fightback strategy for the labor Topping the list, Ryan calls for a break with the Democrats and Republicans and for the formation of a labor party based on the unions. Only such a party can truly represent labor in the political field.

Joseph Ryan has been active in labor and social protest movements for 16 years. A founding member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Ryan served in the U.S. Navy from 1962 to 1966. In the Bay Area, Ryan has been active in strike solidarity campaigns for the Retail Clerks and Oil Workers unions. Ryan has also helped build four Spring Mobilizations for Peace, Jobs and Justice.

Weinstein for Board of Ed.

Sylvia Weinstein, Socialist Action candidate for Board of Education, is one of the best known socialists in San Francisco. She ran for Board of Supervisors in 1984 and 1986, and received over 10,000 votes in each election.

In a city with the largest AIDS crisis in the country outside of New York City, where poverty and unemployment are pushing more and more Black and Latin American youth to drug abuse, where thousands of homeless people roam the streets of every neighborhood—no demand gets to the heart of things better than "Human Needs, Not Profit." And there isn't anyone better qualified to wage an effective fight around that slogan than Sylvia Weinstein.

Weinstein served on the Executive Board of the National Organization of Women from 1975 to 1982. She was active in building the N.O.W. sponsored March for Women's Lives in 1986.

Weinstein served on the Childcare Initiative Task Force and the Health and Childcare Committee of the Commission for the Status of Women. She also served on the Children's Center Expansion Committee of the school district.

Both Weinstein and Ryan are founding members of Socialist Action and staff writers for Socialist Action newspaper.

Today's labor movement needs fighters, and Weinstein and Ryan are just that. Vote Socialist Action in November. For information write to Socialist Action, 3435 Army St. Room 308, San Francisco, CA 94110 or call (415) 821-0458. Sylvia Weinstein Joseph Ryan

Scan page 10

73653 The following are excerpts from an interview with a leader of the Commercial, Catering and Allied Workers Union of South Africa (CCAWUSA), one of the largest and most militant Black unions in South Africa. The CCAWUSA, with a membership of 70,000, is affiliated 1o the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU).

The interview is reprinted from the March 23, 1988, issue of the French-language socialist newsweekly Informations Ouvrieres. The name of the South African trade unionist was withheld for reasons of security.

Question: What is the meaning—particularly for the trade unions—of the repressive measures adopted by the South African government on Feb. 24?

Answer: These measures ban 17 anti-apartheid organizations from carrying out all forms of political activity. This means, in essence, that the major political organizations opposed to the apartheid regime have been outlawed. These include the Azanian People's Organization (AZAPO), the United Democratic Front (UDF), and the various local defense, civil-rights, youth, and student organizations that are linked to these two mass organizations.

As far as the trade unions, it is now illegal for them to conduct activities which the regime considers to be "political." But you must understand that in the current situation in South Africa the line that separates what is "political" from what isn't, is very difficult to establish.

Under the new measures, the trade unions do not have the right to carry out a national campaign for a minimum wage. They cannot campaign for the release from prison of all the detained anti-apartheid activists. This is considered to be "political."

But the unions are the organizations that have been most acutely hit by the repression. For example, in the aftermath of a series of incidents provoked by some strikebreakers, one unionist was killed and a delegate of our union was convicted and sentenced to death. His name is William Ntombela. He is the father of two children.

In addition, these new measures must be understood in relation to a new law concerning labor relations which 10 SOCIALIST ACTION MAY 1988 was recently adopted by the whites-only parliament. This law is geared at taking back all the concessions the regime and the bosses had been compelled to grant over the past few years.

Specifically, the right to strike has been so curtailed that today in South Africa it is very difficult for a strike to be legal. All sympathy strikes are illegal. It will also be illegal for workers to go out on strike more than once in a one-year period for the same demands.

All spontaneous strikes will henceforth be declared illegal. In fact, the bosses will be able to sue the union for losses incurred during a work stoppage. This will create an extremely difficult situation for us because in a union like ours, which must confront all different types of employers, there is scarcely a week when a work conflict does not result, here or there, in a work stoppage.

Question: Why have these repressive measures been enacted today?

Answer: To understand the current situation, you have to go back to the events of 1984-85, when you had a genuine rebellion of the Black population in the industrial townships like Soweto, the factories, and the schools.

The state responded in 1985 by instituting a state of emergency for one year. This greatly restricted the rights to free speech and assembly. In June 1986, the state of emergency was extended. In fact, it is still in effect today. Only this time the main targets of the increased repression were the Black trade unions, which had rapidly developed during this period. A wave of terror, of mass arrests and detentions, followed shortly thereafter.

I must say that our union played an important role in the resistance. The CCAWUSA waged the first strike against the state of emergency. Then, at the close of 1986, we waged an 11-week strike against the major supermarket chain in the country: OK Bazaar.

We were able to win wage increases and other job guarantees which had not existed previously. This was the first of a series of strikes that mobilized the main bastions of the working class throughout 1987: the railworkers, the postal workers, the municipal employees, the metalworkers, and the miners.

In the course of our strike, the workers began how the struggle against apartheid is combined with the struggle against capitalist exploitation. A number of the bosses against whom we were striking, people like Anton Reilly and Tony Blum, belong to that wing of the white ruling class that defines itself as "liberal." They are the ones who participated in the meetings with representatives of the African National Congress (ANC).

The workers began to see right through the hypocrisy of these "liberal" capitalists. They painted union banners which stated: "Even the bosses who say they are against apartheid are not our friends."

This movement was very deep. The government was unable to roll it back. The regime, for example, was unable to break the rent strikes in the townships. It is precisely this movement which the government wishes to attack and defeat today. By outlawing the opposition organizations, it seeks to create a situation where only the few "collaborators" will be allowed to represent the Black majority.

Question: Could you tell us more about your union, your conception of trade-union unity, and your assessment of the role of the unions in the anti-apartheid struggle?

Answer: Our union, with its 70,000 members, is the third most important union in COSATU. More than 50 percent of our members are women. These women are triply oppressed: as women, as Blacks, and as workers. They have raised a series of very specific demands. For example, there were virtually no maternity protections. Our union was able to win a 10-month maternity leave.

I mentioned our strike in December 1986. If that strike was able to hold out and succeed, it is because we consciously strived to act democratically. In each department store and local section, the membership elected their shop stewards, who were directly accountable to those who elected them.

It was the local and regional councils of elected stewards which, in turn, elected the strike's executive committee, the body responsible for implementing the decisions of the membership. The union's full-timers were associated to the strike leadership bodies, but could not make the decisions on their own.

It is inevitable that our union should participate in political struggles: the struggle against apartheid, against repression, against the state of emergency. It is, after all, the state which is attacking us. In this sense, all the political questions are before us in our trade-union organizations.

We believe in the need for workers' democracy, for workers' control, for socialism. When we speak of these necessities, we say what we mean by them. We have already seen what happened in Poland. For us, socialism means socialist democracy.

But it is not up to the trade unions to divide their members along political lines according to the various political organizations they may support. There are workers who support the United Democratic Front (UDF) and the Freedom Charter [the guiding document of the African National Congress], which is not a socialist document. Other workers support the Azanian Manifesto [the guiding document of AZAPO], which links the struggle against apartheid with the struggle for socialism.

In June 1987, we held our congress. The leadership of our federation, COSATU, is politically close to the UDF. It supported the Freedom Charter and wanted to impose it on our union. Democratically, a large majority of our elected delegates at the congress, after a lengthy discussion, rejected support for the Freedom Charter.

After this, the leadership of COSATU supported the [pro-Freedom Charter] minority and organized a split in our union, which pretended to create a new CCAWUSA. This was a serious blow to our union. It permitted the bosses to refuse to negotiate with us.

The fight lasted six months. Stalinist methods of all types-slanders, lies, pressures of all types, physical violence—-were used against the legitimate leadership of our union.

In the end, because the members of the union refused to buckle, an agreement was reached—at least on paper. This was after an attempt to seek the assistance of the courts in condemning us. A whole series of local and regional union meetings are currently under way to resolve this dispute. A congress of CCAWUSA is scheduled in May.

The Johannesburg region is our union's largest. Forty thousand of the 70,000 members are in this region. Despite the new repressive measures, a delegated membership meeting of the Johannesburg region recently took place. Of the 8000 elected delegates, 7800 reaffirmed their confidence and support for the national leadership of the union. Only 200 voted for us to support the Freedom Charter.

We are therefore more convinced than ever that the respect of trade-union democracy is indispensable to unity within our ranks. There are today two major federations of Black workers: COSATU and NACTU [the National Council of Trade Unions, whose leaders generally identify with the views of AZAPO].

We are for united actions with NACTU. We think this is more necessary than ever. And we think that the leadership of COSATU is making a mistake which is harmful to the interests of the working class with its sectarian attitude toward NACTU and its privileged political relations with the liberal capitalists.

Scan page 11

parties have emerged. The present oppo-