Union leader, Anthony Mazzocchi, calls on labor to form its own party

Scan page 8

8 SOCIALIST ACTION JANUARY 1990 "I think the time is now appropriate to escalate a discussion on the need for a labor party."

These were the words of Anthony Mazzocchi, International Secretary-Treasurer of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union (OCAW), as he spoke to a public meeting at the Alameda Central Labor Temple in Oakland, Calif., on Dec. 12.

The meeting, attended by nearly 100 people, was sponsored by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 444 and was endorsed by AFSCME Locals 2700 and 512, and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 265.

Mazzocchi, who has long been agitating for the formation of a labor party in the United States, began his speech by relating his experiences as a young worker and union organizer at the end of World War II. Those were the days, Mazzocchi said, when the unions saw themselves as a social movement.

"I understood that it was the job of trade unions to civilize work, that it was the job of trade unions to fulfill a vision of a shorter workweek, of humane working conditions where workers had control over their lives at the point of production.... That was a time when we didn't even have a grievance procedure; if we didn't like what happened that day at work——we didn't work the next day.

Groundwork for proposal

Mazzocchi laid the groundwork for his labor party proposal by reviewing the great strike wave of 1946-48: "I recall the struggle to fight the implementation of the TaftHartley Act. I was in New York City, which was a union town, and we put nearly a million people into the streets—all trade unionists.... In those days you could do [that] because there was tremendous consciousness.... Unions were seen as crusaders for the advancement of the interests of all people."

But things began to change, Mazzocchi said, when the union movement agreed to abide by the new restrictions imposed by the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act.

(continued from page 20) strike in 1981, and the AFL-CIO bureaucracy did nothing.

The government sent a signal to employers to step up their attacks, and the inaction of the labor bureaucracy sent the message that there would be little resistance to these attacks. The stage was set for accelerating— at a carefully controlled tempo-the offensive against workers.

The capitalists were careful to not directly attempt to attack the strongest section of the working class—the steel, auto, and rail unions, etc. Such a move could have backfired, triggering an explosive resistance from industrial workers.

The bosses took a long-term approach. Their strategy boiled down to: (1) attacking the weaker unorganized sections of the working class by drastic reductions in social benefits, (2) restructuring-through plant closings, plant relocations, and layoffs, and (3) introducing two-tier wage plans and changing work rules.

The effect was immediate. Between 1979 and 1984, millions of American working people were deprived of needed social services as the government slashed programs such as extended unemployment benefits, aid to mothers with dependent children, and medical and welfare benefits.

At the same time, 11.5 million American workers lost their jobs due to plant shutdowns. Some of the most powerful industrial unions were decimated by these shutdowns, primarily because the union bureaucracy agreed in principle with the capitalists' need to maintain "profitability" and "productivity" vis a vis international competitors.

Over 550,000 steelworkers and 250,000 auto workers permanently lost their jobs. "Secondary boycotts were outlawed; a whole host of restrictions were imposed upon trade unions. And we sort of complied with those restrictions."

As a consequence, Mazzocchi stated, the influence and public perception of unions has declined to the point where today, "workers see us ... as powerless to struggle successfully against the bosses."

Mazzocchi believes that trade unions still wield great power—in spite of the many lost union organizing drives and strikes, the current inability of the unions to win substantial gains for workers (instead of concessions), and the shrinking membership of the union movement.

"We have more money than we did before," Mazzocchi said, "we have tremendous resources, and we have people of great ability."

Furthermore, Mazzochi believes that American working people are looking for a change, especially in the electoral arena.

"I think American workers don't vote because that's a sign ... of their sophistication," Mazzocchi told the audience. "What Between 1984 and 1985 (the last year for which figures are available) 700,000 union workers were forced to accept two-tier contracts. Without doubt, the number of workers forced to accept two-tier contracts has doubled since then.

Rank-and-file resistance

The 1980s, however, were also a time when working people attempted to organize resistance against the employers' assaults. Airline workers, like the TWA flight attendants, railworkers in New England, and city workers in Detroit and Philadelphia, to name only a few, were involved in important skirmishes that indicated a growing mililancy.

But in every instance the labor bureaucracy sabotaged the class interests of these fighters. They signed contracts behind the backs of the membership, undermined solidarity by respecting "no-strike" clauses in contracts, or refused to organize mass picketlines to challenge court-ordered injunctions on limited picketing.

The most graphic example of the bureaucracy's treachery, and the lengths to which it will go to in the interest of "business unionism" was its betrayal of the 1985-86 Hormel strike of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local P-9 in Austin, Minn.

This strike, which became an inspiration for workers across the nation, was the first serious resistance by an industrial union to company takeback demands. Local P-9, a union with militant class-struggle traditions, was openly challenging the prevailing UFCW strategy of granting concessions. Lasting nearly one year, the strike was betrayed by both the UFCW and AFL-CIO bureaucracies.

UFCW officials, with the AFL-CIO's blessing, signed their own agreement with Hormel, encouraged scabbing by offering post-strike benefits, and eventually put P-9 they are saying is-and I think they're saying it very clearly —'it doesn't matter."

"American workers," he continued, "have been voting 'none of the above' in increasing numbers.... I think there is a tremendous reservoir of people who are sitting on their hands [in the voting booth] because they believe that what exists [Democrats and Republicans] doesn't represent their best interests."

"That 50 percent [of the electorate] has been described as the third party of the 'nonvoter.'... I think we're at the point in history where people have rejected the existing political parties."

Nucleus of a labor party Mazzocchi described the betrayals and current strikebreaking of the Democratic and Republican parties. He noted, on the other hand, that when Jesse Jackson raised populist issues during the 1988 presidential campaign, he received a favorable response from working people, especially trade unionists.

To combat declining living standards and Joseph Ryan/Socialist Action under trusteeship. Nearly 1800 valiant packinghouse workers permanently lost their jobs. The defeat of the P-9 strike only further emboldened company and government attacks against working people.

Struggle allowed to wane As the recent 10-month-long strike by Eastern machinists clearly attests, the union bureaucracy is more than capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. When the Eastern strike began in March 1989, the class solidarity interests of the workers put the struggle in an advantageous position.

The machinists were joined in the strike by pilots and flight attendants; the airline was virtually shut down. But because of the union leadership's lack of a class-struggle perspective-like mass picketlines at the airports—the struggle was allowed to wane. Consequently, the pilots and flight attendants have returned to work, and the machinists are out by themselves. Thousands of militant workers are beginning to draw their own conclusions.

The union bureaucracy, in an attempt to cover up its no-win policy, has championed what it calls the "Corporate Campaign." The "Corporate Campaign" is a strategy based on public-relations campaigns and civil disobedience. In essence thè "Corporate Campaign" approach is counterposed to the strategy of mass picketlines, rallies, and solidarity actions.

This strategy has yet to win a strike. On the contrary, the "Corporate Campaign" strategy is rooted in the belief that it is impossible to win strikes these days, and serves the function of protecting the bureaucracy from a head-to-head confrontation with the boss-and the government, as represented by the courts, the police, and the National Guard.

begin, the wages, Mazzocchi believes the time is ripe to begin organizing a structure-around a "bold" social program—that could be a nucleus for the formation of a labor party.

"My proposal is that working people form a new party.... We need an instrument, a party, to provide a space for what the program should be. And I believe if we begin to argue out what that program should bewithin a party structure-we'll attract tens of thousands and millions into a party like that. I think Americans are waiting for such a party."

Mazzocchi described how the labor movement would be strengthened by forming its own party. "I think it will be much easier for labor to organize because people will say: 'That's a movement I want to identify with!'' Mazzocchi said that a labor party needs to be formed not only to strengthen labor vis a vis the boss, but also to be in a position to negotiate with the government for the social programs working people need. "For example," he stated, "we need nationalized healthcare in this country."

One disturbing flaw in Mazzocchi's labor party proposal, however, was the fact that he ruled out challenging the Democrats and Republicans in the voting booth until some vague time in the future. "It takes time before you challenge for power," he stated.

While Mazzocchi correctly elaborated on the decisive importance of formulating a program for a labor party, he seemed to downplay the fact that the best barometer for gauging public support for such a program is in elections, both locally and nationally. He believes that running prematurely in elections-and losing—would eventually be fatal.

The experience of the United Mine Workers' successful write-in campaign last November in Virginia would seem to point in the other direction.

Mazzocchi also failed to point to the decisive role of victorious struggles on the picketline, which raise political consciousness and build self-confidence among the union ranks, thereby, laying the basis for the formation of a political instrument—a labor party.

Although Mazzocchi seems to be putting the cart before the horse, his call for the labor movement to begin discussing the formation of a labor party-albeit a call in the wilderness at the present—should be supported. If some of his proposals seemed vague, it may be because too few working people have had the opportunity to participate in this important discussion.

finds itself in a crisis. They have been cutting their own throats because they are committed to the preservation of American capitalism. But out of the social crises that lie down the road a new leadership will emerge in the unions.

This leadership will not tie the fate of working people to the fate of capitalism. This leadership, which will come from the ranks who are the victims of the bureaucracy's policies, will raise a social program that is independent of the class interests of the bosses.

To fight unemployment they'll demand the shorter workweek with no cut in pay. To fight homelessness they'll demand publicworks programs to build housing.

To fight poverty they'll demand full union-scale wages for everyone.

And to fight the betrayals of the political parties of the employers, the Democrats and Republicans, they'll form their own political party—a labor party.

The historic mission of the labor movement will place it in the leadership of all the oppressed who are fighting for social justice. Only through this kind of independent, class-struggle activity will the 1990s become the stage for the reversal of the legacy of the 1980s.

nternationa JEWPOINT A biweekly magazine published by the Fourth International. One year: $47. Write to: rue Richard Lenoir, 93108 Montreuil, France.