Why can't everybody have a job?

Scan page 7

SOCIALIST ACTION MAY 1992 7 In this period of recession that seems to drag on with little upturns and downturns, millions of people have been unemployed for at least some time, and many have been unemployed for the whole recession. And the threat of being unemployed hangs over the head of many more workers.

The hardships of unemployment are especially noted in periods of economic downturn, but even in economic "good times" there is always a layer of workers without jobs. Karl Marx called this sector of the workers capitalism's "industrial reserve army."

Why does this army of unemployed-sometimes larger, sometimes smaller—always exist under capitalism? Why can't everybody have a job?

The answer is to be found in the continual and anarchic upheaval of capitalist production.

Under the lash of competition between capitalist enterprises, the employers are always searching for ways to drive down their costs of production through the introduction of labor-saving machinery. These means of production are therefore constantly being renovated, and since this is going on all the time, some workers are always being laid off.

And, since it takes some time for laid-off workers to hunt down another job, there is always a layer of unemployed.

The existence of this industrial reserve army comes about through the workings of the system itself. It is not a conscious plot on the part of the capitalists.

OAKLAND, Calif.—In a settlement likely to set the pattern for future negotiations between California's multibillion-dollar grocery industry and the Teamsters Union for years to come, Northern California Teamsters voted by an 86 percent margin to accept a "recognition agreement" with Safeway Corp. replete with major concessions.

The agreement, covering some 800 workers, was ratified on April 26 by a 333 to 55 vote. It was called a "recognition agreement" because it was signed by the Teamsters with a "new" employer, Specialized Distribution Management Inc. (SDMI), a non-union management outfit that was preparing to open a $1.8 billion state-of-the-art distribution center in Tracy, Calif.

Safeway had threatened to move its operations to Tracy and to fire all 800 Teamster drivers and warehouse workers at its current Northern California distribution center in Richmond, Calif. To make it clear that SDMI meant business about opening non-union, SDMI began a campaign to solicit applications for jobs at the Tracy plant. Some 29,000 unemployed workers filed applications for the announced 1000 new positions.

The practice of transferring unionized operations to non-union employers (the old bosses under a new name), utilizing a series of legal machinations, is called "double-breasting."

In the course of months However, they do find it useful in the class struggle with the workers.

The army of unemployed is a continual check on the wages of the employed. The unemployed, seeking work, are in competition with the employed for the same jobs. The employers can always threaten their employed workers with replacement through hiring the unemployed, desperate to have a job, at lower wages.

If there were full employment (which cannot happen under capitalism), this pressure of competition between the employed and unemployed wouldn't exist, and wages would tend to rise. So the existence of the industrial reserve army objectively helps the capitalists keep wages down.

The threat of being replaced is also used by the bosses to try to keep workers in line concerning work conditions, like the intensity of labor demanded by the employers, the length of the working day, health and safety questions, etc.

The formation of unions comes about as workers realize they need to band together and bargain collectively instead of individually with the employers. This reduces the competition between workers, which means they get a better deal.

Unions are able to threaten to withhold their labor in the bargaining process with the boss. If necessary, they can strike and stop production, bring a halt to the employer's profit-making, bringing pressure on the capitalcompliant Teamster officials limited the exercise of union power to a largely ineffectual shoppers' boycott of 50 of Safeway's 250 Northern California supermarkets.

A combination pep rally and press conference, organized by the Teamster officialdom in conjunction with their associates in the Bay Area labor movement, was attended by some 400 strikers. With great fanfare, the boycott was announced, the employers denounced, and the rank and file sent home-confused.

Some union members at the non-union facility, informational picketing, home-perhaps fearful SDMI should they later apply for work.

Teamster officials let it be known that they would offer no resistance to the "double-breasting" operation other than to try to organize the non-union plant by utilizing the procedures of the National Labor Relations Act.

However, when Teamster officials told Safeway's phony stand-in, SDMI, that they were prepared to negotiate major concessions in exchange for union recognition, the company eagerly moved to guarantee recognition-and a continuation of dues payments to Teamster treasuries.

A final assist before the Teamster tops capitulated was sought from the local "friendly" Democratic Party congressman, Tom Lantos, who called for a meeting with both sides to "defuse this time applied for jobs others joined the and most stayed of antagonizing be compelled to ists to be more reasonable.

Of course, the capitalists can attempt to retaliate by hiring replacement workers from the industrial reserve army, breaking the strike and resuming production with the union smashed. Striking workers therefore had to devise tactics to prevent this from happening.

One of these was the picket line. The term is borrowed from the military, where it means a line of soldiers established to defend and hold a certain position. The striker's picket line is a similar formation, designed to prevent the bosses from breaking a strike by hiring replacement workers.

Another was the sit-down strike, where workers occupied a factory in conjunction with a mass picket line to prevent any resumption of production. This was the tactic used in the organization of the automobile workers in the 1930s.

The employers have utilized their control over the government to counter such tactics with court injunctions and the raw power of the police, national guard or even the army.

Experience has shown that striking workers faced with such employer actions can be victorious, however, through a combination of mass determination not to be intimidated and waging a more general political fight to win the support of working people and others in society to the justness of their cause.

In the labor upsurge of the 1930s that created the industrial unions, workers saw that they had to reach out to the unemployed.

Huge numbers had been unemployed themselves during the depression, and many unemployed workers looked to the power of the new unions to help their situation.

The division between the employed and unemployed is the most fundamental division that capitalism creates in the working class. Overcoming it has to be a goal of any winning labor strategy.

It was as a result of the great labor upsurge of the 1930s that the capitalist government conceded unemployment payments.

This was an important victory for workers. Previously, unemployed workers were dependent on family members, friends or charity.

The more workers are united, the less they are in competition with each other and the stronger they are in confronting the employers. The labor movement needs to fight against the division between employed and unemployed. A labor program to do this should contain the following elements: • Full unemployment compenbomb."When Safeway declined to accept Lantos's invitation, the congressman disappeared with scarcely a comment-other than to offer a pat on the back to the union for its commitment to a "reasonable" resolution and a respectful slap on the wrist to management for not showing up.

Two-tier wage package The new agreement provides for the company to take back all Teamsters who want to work at the new plant, a number estimated to be roughly 500-600 of the original 800 employees. It also maintains the union's old wage rate ($16 per hour) and a health and welfare package.

But it also contains an ironclad no-strike pledge, an agreement to end the present and future boycotts, and a stipulation to eventually submit all unresolved issues to binding arbitration.

The five-and-one-half-year agreement includes a two-tier wage system. New workers—approximately half the workforce—will start at $11 per hour. It also provides a reduction of from $1.40 to $.75 in the employer's hourly contributions to the Teamster pension fund.

The old contract, which covered many older and experienced workers, included provisions for five weeks of vacation pay to those workers with 20 years of service, 12 annual holidays and—for most workers—12 sick days a year. All these items are now to be renegotiated, with an outside arbitrator hàving the final word. It is not hard to predict that big cuts in these benefits will be imposed on Safeway workers.

sation at union scale wages for the full duration of unemployment. • A crash program of public works to meet socially pressing needs such as low cost housing, rebuilding the cities and infrastructure of roads, bridges, etc. • 30 for 40—reduce the workweek to 30 hours to spread the available work-without any reduction in pay. • Affirmative action for Blacks, other oppressed minorities and women to overcome their disproportionate representation in the industrial reserve army of the unemployed.

The capitalists and their apologists would howl that these measures would cost them too much.

But their "suffering" would pale next to the relief of real suffering that unemployment means for working people.

And, we should keep in mind that it's their system that wreaks the havoc of unemployment. We owe them nothing. If we don't take action to defend ourselves from the adverse effects of the workings of capitalism, who will?

The Northern California Teamster Joint Council 7 includes 60,000 union members, a formidable power were it to be mobilized in defense of the embattled grocery workers at Safeway. The deployment of this force on the field of battle against the giant Sateway Corporation would have signaled a return to the kind of struggle that built the American labor movement in decades past.

Instead, Teamster officials have given Safeway Corporation, and the food industry in general, the green light to whipsaw union workers from one end of the country to the other.

In past strikes, Safeway met Teamster pickets at the distribution centers with force and violence, employing professional thugs and cops to break the arms and legs of union members and then arresting them for trespassing on company property. Scab truckers were hired to drive through union picket lines with lethal force. During a strike against Safeway in 1978, a Teamster picket was killed when a scab-driven truck rammed through the picketline.

To reverse the trend of deepening defeats imposed by employers across the country, the labor movement must return to the simple idea that working-class unity and solidarity at the point of production and in the political arena is a prerequisite for success.

The failure of local Teamster officials to challenge the employers with massive picket lines and protests at the distribution center was central to the Teamster defeat.

Newly elected International Teamster president Ron Carey offered considerable help to the local boycott effort, but was largely excluded from the inner circles of the union hierarchy that negotiated the defeat. Hopefully, the lessons of this failed effort will be carefully evaluated by the Carey administration and by rank and filers around the country as they set their course for the coming battles.

Scan page 8

The union tops blamed their capitulation to Caterpillar on the grounds of complacency among the rank and file. 8 SOCIALIST ACTION MAY 1992 ... Caterpillar (continued from page return to work under its terms would be "guaranteed their job for six years.")

Then, on April 20, Caterpillar made another announcement, that "virtually all striking workers would be asked back [emphasis added]." Around the same time, Caterpillar also declared that new production techniques introduced during the strike meant that all strikers would not be called back to work. A rumor was widely reported circulating in Peoria that this might add up to as many as 10-15 percent of the strikers.

It is clear that the company intends to press its advantage as far as it can. But it will do so craftily-testing and measuring the response of the union—to avoid triggering a possible explosion of resistance from the ranks of the UAW.

Defeat results from union policy The decision to end the strike has been correctly characterized in the media as a major defeat for the UAW and the most serious setback for labor in the past decade. But it is also claimed, falsely, that this is more evidence of an objective decline in the intrinsic power of the American working class and its unions.

The Caterpillar bosses' victory over striking members of the UAW is not proof that the intrinsic power of organized workers, especially the industrial unions, has declined. Even though the industrial workforce is a smaller proportion of the working class, unions at the strategic centers of the nation's industrial production fully retain their ability to bring the whole economy to a grinding halt.

Rather, it is the latest proof of the bankruptcy of the top labor officialdom's strategy of class collaboration a strategy based on the absurd notion that there is a fundamental identity of interests between workers and their bosses that outweighs all conflicting interests between them.

In addition to these strategic errors, the union's public stance was badly presented. The UAW officialdom allowed the mass media to make the most of company propaganda designed to undermine the workers' determination to win their strike. The central UAW negotiating strategy focused on "pattern, bargaining," rather than opposing Caterpillar's wide-ranging takeback demands, especially the company's demand for a lower-tier wage scale for all new employees.

This allowed the Caterpillar bosses to divert attention from the giant chunk it intended to take from its employees' living standards. Meanwhile, the company, with the eager assistance of the mass media, focused on the $39,000 top annual wage and the promise of six years of job security it was offering workers, and on how "unfair" it was to try to impose a "pattern contract" on the company.

Lower wage scales

The two-tier wage system-the real decisive issue in the Caterpillar strike—is one of the most damaging assaults on unions to come down the pike in over half a century. Besides forcing unions to make new employees second-class members, the A balance sheet of the militant struggle against Hormel two-tier system will ultimately drive all wages down to the lowest levels.

Already, those unions that have conceded a lower wage scale for new union members have found that higher-paid workers are being pressured to take early retirement, and are even being offered "buyout" bonuses to induce them to quit. And to increase the pressure on them to "voluntarily" take the buyout, higher-tier workers are being harassed to the point of being fired on trumped-up charges.

Older workers are gradually being replaced by youngsters, including sons and daughters of first-tier workers, who are being paid as little as a third of their parents' wages.

The union's focus on patter bargaining was designed to win support from a mythical category called "the public," who are presumed to favor a union policy intended to be fair to all employers, rather than appealing to the great majority of the population who are in the same boat with striking UAW members.

This focus was, in the final analysis, a vain appeal to their "partners," the auto industry bosses, to intervene on the union's side in order to preserve "peaceful coexistence" between workers and bosses.

But it is common knowledge that the auto industry's big three-General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler-will now gleefully turn "pattern bargaining" against the UAW and demand concessions for themselves in next year's contract negotiations that are equal, at least, to whatever is granted to Caterpillar.

Labor policies of the past This "partnership" scam led inexorably to the tactics that the UAW used in this strike. These counterproductive tactics, moreover, have been applied by virtually By Jake Cooper first-hand account of the tant 1985-86 strike by meatpacking workers that was one of the biggest tests for labor In the '80s.

Jake Cooper was a participant in the great 1934 Teamsters strike that turned Minneapolls Into a unlon town, and was an organizel of support for the P-9 strikers.

Order Now! Only $1.50 Send to :

Walnut Publishing Co. 3425 Army St., San Francisco, CA 9411 every union in the country ever since 1947, when the Taft-Hartley Act was passed.

To better understand the wrong policies of today, we must look at the much more effective policies employed by the militant industrial unions during the mass labor upsurge of the 1930s.

In those days, workers learned from bitter experience that only mass picket lines could stop scabs from taking their jobs. And that's what they did. The policy of shutting struck plants down tight was followed by millions of workers and their unions. This was central to the strategy that showed American labor to be the world's most powerful working class.

This policy was also applied to foremen and supervisors. No one was allowed through, if the workers could help it. Bitter experience had taught the workers that even a trickle through the picket lines of management personnel—with a handful of scabs among them-demoralized workers. The trickle could grow into a union-busting flood that could sink the strike, even if a majority of strikers stood firm. That's why mass picketing-letting no one through—is the only way to go.

It's important to note, however, that effective picketing didn't require everyone to be on the line at all times. Enough force was needed merely to hold the line when it was attacked until reinforcements could be mobilized. When striking workers were by themselves not able to stop the attack, unemployed and off-duty workers were called upon to help. And when necessary, sister unions called on their members to stop work and help keep scabs out.

This sort of solidarity was established as a norm the threat of such mass reinforcements, alone, often served to convince the bosses and their agencies of repression that strikebreaking would not work. Today, too, the bosses can be made to fear the worst that aggressive strikebreaking might trigger an outpouring from workers everywhere in massive protests, especially if any worker's blood is shed.

When the slogan "an injury to one is an injury to all" is reestablished as a fundamental principle of trade unionism, unity of the bosses tends to break down. When they come to fear that such outbreaks of mass worker resistance could shake the very foundations of capitalist rule, the ruling class tends to become divided, loses its resolve, and is often compelled to back down.

Blame the rank and file However, a 180-degree change in the principle of labor solidarity, imposed by the government with the help of the top labor officialdom, opened up the unions to the defeats suffered in the last decade.

The UAW officialdom already justifies their capitulation at Caterpillar by blaming the rank and file. The media reports that unnamed UAW officials are whining that they had to end the strike because many workers gave signs of breaking ranks.

Harley Shaiken, a widely quoted professor of labor studies at the University of California at San Diego, a former UAW official and a well-known apologist for the union bureaucracy, was reported in the April 16 Chicago Tribune as saying: "The union staged an orderly retreat and avoided a debacle."

The Tribune also reported him saying, "The union was fearful of losing jobs not only to replacement workers but also to members of its own ranks [returnees]." It's not hard to guess that Shaiken's informants were top UAW officials readying themselves to pin the blame on the victims of their own bankrupt policy.

Nor is there any truth in the argument that antilabor laws now on the books make mass picketing impossible. The fact is that virtually identical laws were on the books when the big labor battles were waged in the decade of the 1930s. Defiance of these antilabor laws by millions of determined, fighting workers made them a dead letter and ultimately led to their repeal.

A similar policy would lead to the same result today. The only missing ingredient is a fighting union leadership—with a fighting strategy.

Post-war antilabor offensive The roots of the crisis faced today by organized labor were planted nearly 50 years ago. The American capitalist class went on the offensive in 1946, when Winston Churchill, England's prime minister, launched the Cold War in Fulton, Mo.

A red-scare broadside, leveled by the capitalist-controlled mass media and its political representatives, caused an anticommunist hysteria to sweep across the land. It served to reduce worker resistance to a legislative assault on the unions—not unlike an artillery barrage preceding a military offensive.

This resulted in passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947—by majority vote of both capitalist parties. This act combined banning alleged "communists" from holding union office, banning mass picketing, and banning so-called "secondary boycotts."

It's important to note one of the main functions of the red-baiting provision of this act. It served as bait to induce the most conservative layers of union officials to buy the law's requirement that every union officer sign an oath that he or she was not a communist. This, in turn, gave the labor bureaucracy an incentive for limiting their opposition to Taft-Hartley to harmless and ineffective protests.

The noncommunist oath provision of this antilabor act gave the bureaucrats a weapon against militant trade unionists and rival trade-union factions. It provided them with a powerful weapon for consolidating

Scan page 9

• End "jointness" sham -- return to adversarial, solidarity unionism. • Pursue independent political action/new party alternative.

American industrial union, as first step to full internationalism.

For a more delailed copy of the UAW NDM Platform, contact: Now Directions, PO Box 6876, Saint Louis, MO 63144 The platform of the UAW's Movement for New Directions.

SOCIALIST ACTION MAY 1992 9 (continued from previous page)

bureaucratic control over the unions. The anticommunist provision of Taft-Hartley helped the labor bureaucracy break down the democratic traditions created by the tumultuous mass labor upsurge of the 1930s and '40s.

The result was that a majority of labor's officialdom was able to quite rapidly consolidate a bureaucratic stranglehold over the unions.

There were notable exceptions, however, to this capitulation. They included leaders of the United Mine Workers, the International Typographical Union (these two unions refused to sign the "noncommunist oath" requirement of Taft-Hartley), the United Packinghouse Workers, and the Atomic Trades and Labor Council-all of whom had been on strike in 1948 in defiance of Taft-Hartley.

President Harry S. Truman then swung the Taft-Hartley club at these striking unions. (Truman had vetoed the act the previous year. But it was not because he was "pro-labor," as the myth goes, but only because he was for more stringent antilabor laws and, most of all, because he knew that Congress would over-ride his veto.!)

The rest of the top labor bureaucracy kept silent— including CIO President Philip Murray, and AFL President William Green (these two union federations were separate at that time).

By pinning the "communist" (that is, Stalinist) label on union militants, they were driven from union positions, and in many cases, hounded off their jobs and out of their unions. This served to intimidate and demoralize the most militant and conscious layers of the rank and file. Even an unsubstantiated charge of being a "commie" could lead to the firing of union militants—as it did to so many writers, artists, and intellectuals who were so labeled during the McCarthyite phase of the witchhunt.

This episode reveals an important component of the labor bureaucracy's current strategy of partnership with the bosses and their political representatives. Against the rank and file, there is, indeed, a concrete foundation for what they call "the partnership between unions and management."

Both bosses and bureaucrats fear a new upsurge of labor militancy—the bosses, because profits will suffer, and the selfserving bureaucracy because its hold on the unions and the privileges they enjoy will be broken.

But even under these difficult circumstances, it took decades to gradually undermine labor's fighting traditions. How was this accomplished?

Mass picketing given up The right to mass picket was theoretically outlawed by Taft-Hartley. It's one thing, however, to pass an unpopular law which takes away rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. It's quite another to physically take them away. These rights, freedom of speech and assembly, were considered by a great majority of workers-and an absolute majority of the population as a whole-as inalienable rights. They had all the greater force because they were won in the course of mass struggle.

The mineworkers and a few other unions were left to resist Taft-Hartley without any help from the heads of the AFL and CIO. After their defeat, routine injunctions against mass picketing were meekly honored by the labor bureaucracy, without even a pretense of resistance.

But the ranks were made complacent because, in most cases, there was no significant attempt to herd scabs through the picket lines established by the powerful industrial unions. It appeared as if just the posting of a couple of pickets at each entrance was enough to close down struck workplaces.

That's when the second stage of the softening up process began. It soon became routine for management personnel to go back and forth through token picket lines. That laid the basis for what we saw happen in 1985-86 in Austin, Minn., when, after the strike at the Hormel Co. was on for two months, 200 "management personnel" were allowed through picket lines unchallenged.

Then, four months later, Hormel announced that permanent replacement workers would be hired if the union, Local P-9 of the United Food and Commercial Workers, didn't call off the strike and return to work on the basis of the last company offer.

By this time, the six months of token picketing had taken their toll. Two hundred union members, thinking that any job is better than none at all, went through their union's picket lines.

Nearly 40 years of token picketing had established an inertia that could not easily be overcome. By the time striking Hormel workers woke up, it was too late to mobilize effective picket lines. Every day, strikers could see more and more cars in the Hormel Co. parking lots.

The Hormel bosses' union-busting pattern was repeated against paper workers in INTERNAL DEMOCRACY Full membership voting international officers.

• Convention delegate roll-call votes by electronic means.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Fight concessions, pla nt clos corrupt patronage systems.

ZING Mobilize resources internationally.

• Emphasize strategies involving progressive community allies, women. minority communities, environmentalists, etc.

SAL ACTION Initiate national labor TV and promote solidarity.

'ATIONALISM Participate in new forms of Support labor/peace/justice struggles worldwide.

UAW NEW)

DIRECTIONS MAJOR NDM 1992 CONVENTIC PLATFORM HIGHLIGHTS One-Member, speed-ups, industrial netwi International Unioism. Push creation Jay, Maine, and other places. Now Caterpillar workers—members of one of the most powerful industrial unions, located in the heartland of industrial unionism-have become victims of the bosses' antilabor offensive and the defeatist strategy imposed on the unions by its highest officials.

Another innovation introduced by TaftHartley is the outlawing of "secondary boycotts." This is the ban against honoring the picket lines of sister unions. This is the most insidious aspect of this Act; it makes elementary labor solidarity illegal!

This provision, more than any other, could not be made to stick without the active support of the top echelons of the union officialdom.

Since Taft-Hartley was enacted, a gradual process, by which union negotiators quiet5109 ly slipped "no-strike" clauses into union contract after contract, put the force of the union's own "voluntary" action behind laws making working-class solidarity an empty and meaningless slogan.

But, it would be a big mistake to conclude from all this that workers and their unions have already lost the class war. Far from it. The unions retain their full capacity to mobilize a counteroffensive. And there are now signs that a reawakening is taking place.

The Caterpillar defeat itself will have the effect of helping to shake the world's most powerful working class out of a lethargy induced by misleadership.

One and a half million Teamsters have risen up. They have overthrown one of the most criminal labor bureaucracies and elected a new leadership, including members of the rank-and-file Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU).

And now the UAW top officialdom itself is faced with a similar challenge from another rank and file movement, the UAW Movement for New Directions (NDM). Jerry Tucker, its candidate for UAW president, has laid out its Major NDM 1992 Convention Platform. It constitutes a remarkable advance over programs offered by other rank and file movements-including the TDU. (See box on this page.)

Two planks in this excellent platform stand out: "End "jointness' sham—return to adversarial, solidarity unionism." and "Pursue independent political action/new party alternative."

Further developments signaling a reawakening is evidenced in the latest issue (April, 1992) of the Labor Party Advocates' newsletter. While the quotes by prominent international union officials in favor of a labor party are muddied by comments implying residual hopes in the Democrats, the thrust of the LPA campaign popularizes the idea of a labor party. This serves to break down illusions in the "two parties of the bosses."

This cuts across the AFL-CIO top officialdom's endorsement of the Democratic Party candidate for president, Bill Clinton-as sorry an excuse for a "friend of labor," as we have seen. The AFL-CIO bureaucracy stubbornly persists in supporting company unionism in politics, and blocking the road to independent labor political action. But evidence is mounting that long-held disillusionment with capitalist "friends of labor" is nearing a point of qualitative change.

The latest defeat suffered by Caterpillar workers underscores the need for labor to return to the class-struggle strategy that built the powerful industrial unions-and to go further still along the road to independent labor political action.

A strategy to unite all working peopleBlack and white, women and men, organized and unorganized, young and old, employed and unemployed—is vitally necessary. It would be an irresistible force for fundamental change.

1 "Truman's repeated incitations against labor; his seizures of the mines and railroads for purposes of strikebreaking; his threat of armed force against the maritime workers; his demand for a 'draft strikers' bill; his signing of the Hobbs Act; his invoking of an injunction and a 'vengeful' fine against the coal miners; his call for revision of the Wagner Act; his boast that he would 'beat the Republicans to the punch' in pushing anti-labor legislation; his speech to Congress calling for a federal ban on many traditional union activities-all these were vital elements in the birth-process of the Taft-Hartley Act." See "Labor's Giant Step," by Art Preis, Pathfinder Press, New York.

Scan page 10

Mercia Andrews is the national organizaI think it is because of the maternal instinct that asks: if I lose my job who will provide for the family? But in many cases, as in the SACCU strike, as well as the nurses' strike last year, they have played a leading role.

So, I should say that over the last 10 years the role of women in fighting for liberation in this country has been very significant. It is unfortunate that none of

----- pull-quotes -----

Learning About Marxism By Barry Sheppard

LESSONS OF THE P-9 STRIKE A lil'p-9 PORT FROM

Lessons of the p-g Strike

UAW -RIKE