Uncle Sam sabotages rail workers' rights

Scan page 6

Beginning with the current issue of Socialist Action, "Which Side Are You On" will be a guest column for trade unionists around the country to write about labor issues and the workers' struggle.

For the second time in a little more than a year, American railroad workers have seen their legal right to strike-and as a result, their ability to negotiate a contract-eroded by government intervention.

It has become quite clear to most observers that in the future, unless unions buckle under and agree to an inferior contract, a panel of federal "mediators" will decide what working conditions on the nation's railroads will be-as well as what improvements (if any) will be allowed in rail workers' wage and benefit packages.

Art LeClair is president and chairperson of IBEW Local 791, Amtrak/Conrail, in Boston, Mass.

OAKLAND, Calif.—A unanimous and exhilarating July 11, 1992, contract ratification vote ended the seven week strike of five unions representing Summit Medical Center workers here.

The strike marked a victory for the labor movement. Over 1700 striking workers demonstrated that a professional union-busting operation could be defeated by returning to the elementary principles of solidarity that first made the American trade-union movement a formidable power.

Rather than being picked off one at a time, the five unions decided to take on the employer together. In addition, they called on the broad labor movement and Oakland's large Black community, as well as the community in general, for support.

While the result was modestly significant, and portends well for the future, it was still inadequate in relation to what is in fact needed to decisively demonstrate labor's power.

To regain a basic right of labor The long and arduous Summit strike was a defensive battle aimed at regaining a right that had been partially lost in negotiations in 1985—the right to respect the picket lines of another striking union.

The strike took place in the context of a management effort to use antilabor legislation relating to corporate mergers—in this case the merger of two hospitals, MerrittPeralta and Providence—to tear up a union contract.

Prior to the strike, management used this legislation, which effectively voided previous union contracts, to unilaterally impose layoffs and to threaten cutbacks in medical coverage. These openly hostile acts angered the workers and set the stage for the strike. The choice was clearly posed: Either lay down in the face of yet another employer takeback offensive or stand up and fight.

But there are important lessons to be learned, including the lessons of union mistakes that might have resulted in a less favorable outcome. These weaknesses must be frankly assessed to better prepare for the inevitable battles to come.

The most important weakness strike was the failure of the striking to decisively mobilize the strikers picket lines.

Of the 1700 strikers, only some 300-400 participated in any form of regular strike activity. Perhaps another 200-250 crossed the picket lines. The remainder were passive supporters. That is, they respected the picket lines, but generally remained apart from the struggle, staying at home or perhaps seeking temporary work elsewhere to make ends meet.

With only 300-400 active participants, and more often than not considerably less, of the unions on the If this practice is allowed to go unchecked, it will mark the definitive end to collective bargaining as we know it in the railroad industry.

As of this date, no ranking rail union official has had much to say about the situation we now face, other than to comment on how unfair it is. For the most part, rank-and-file rail union members are angry and want to fight back, but feel totally powerless.

At the same time as we were taking it on the chin in rail, Lane Kirkland, president of the AFL-CIO, and a host of other leading union bureaucrats were agreeing to trade off all union workers' rights to strike in exchange for a "compromise" in the language of Senate Bill S-55 (Packwood Amendment), which, if passed into law, would have been devastating for working people everywhere. (See Nat Weinstein's article in the July Socialist Action.)

If this "compromise" had become law, union workers everywhere, regardless of the industry they are in, would have been forced to rely on the same Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) mechanisms that rail workers have had to endure over recent years. The end result would be contracts written by the government to the advantage of the rail corporations.

The recently concluded mediations around the June 24 rail strike and lockout shouldn't fool anyone.

In these Congressionally mandated proceedings, the same process employed to resolve disputes in major league baseball was used to write contracts affecting thousands of railroad workers. Frankly, if they want to treat us like professional ball players, I wouldn't object to being paid like one.

This was nothing more than a curveball thrown by Congress that allegedly provides-according to Congressman Echert (DOhio)—a "level playing field for both labor and management."

Interestingly enough, these are the same words uttered by the "good" congressman last year in reference to the enactment of House Joint Resolution 222, which ushered in the devastating recommendations of PEB 219 for more than 230,000 rail workers.

At best, a facade of fairess is erected to camouflage its real intent, namely to make certain that the nation's rail traffic is allowed to run unaffected by walkouts or job actions by the workers in their attempts to secure better wages and working conditions.

What is needed to turn the tables on this ridiculously one-sided process should be obvious. It is certainly clear in the minds of railroad workers from coast to coast.

We need to "return to the days of yesteryear," when a strike was a strike and not some publicity campaign run by slicksters from Madison Avenue.

Unless we shut down the railroads-and shut them down tight—we are doomed to a repeat of the last year's disastrous events. Reliance on politicians from the Democratic Party is a fool's game. It's time we stopped playing it.

It is also high time that we get beyond the "fear" of court injunctions and restraining orders, too. Without the ability to withhold our labor-for as long as is necessary—we are reduced to scrambling for the few crumbs that the corporations and their pals in Washington are willing to toss in our direction. Enough is enough!

for ongoing labor and community solidarity.

But their relatively small size also highlighted the fact that a significant majority of the union rank and file itself was absent. The bulk of the participants were from a small layer of area union officials, a number of activists from local radical and progressive social organizations, and a handful of union members and activists inspired by the courage of the strikers.

However, an important strength of the strike was in the openness of the unions to accept support from all quarters and to try to mobilize mass protests at the hospital site.

A "war council" was called by the leadership of the 1.8 million member California Labor Federation. But this meeting, held 90 miles away in Sacramento, in the context of an important budget crisis, attracted only a handful of officials whose combined efforts mobilized scarcely more than a few hundred at one demonstration at the hospital site.

The regular participation of the Alameda County Labor Council led to modest additions to the picketlines and to a number of well-publicized "militant" weekly activities that slowed down a few hospital operations for brief periods.

There were a host of other elements to the strike, each of which amounted to a small boost in a difficult situation. These included union pressure, which resulted in the Oakland City Council calling for a boycott of the hospital and in a number of articles in the local press clearly sympathetic to the strike's modest demands.

In the end, these small additions proved capable of rescuing a slowly weakening effort. The strike ended when a federal mediator, who was known to be a past associate of one of the striking unions, proposed settling the strike on terms acceptable to the union.

If this mediator's proposal had been less, it is not clear whether the ranks would have chosen to endure much longer. But one thing is certain: The favorable proposal could have only come about because the rank and file was determined to fight. At the time of the ratification vote, the ranks of the union were still determined to go another round.

As the striking unions prepare for future confrontations, including coming contract negotiations with the powerful Kaiser Hospital complex, which is organized statewide, the lessons of the Summit strike are being discussed and evaluated by all concerned The victorious unions have won new support by their courage and commitment. But their real power has yet to be employed. It will certainly be needed for the coming battles.