ILWU One-Day ‘Strikes’
2012Eric Kupka 2012-02Read it in the scan (PDF at ETOL), page 7 →
The words are the paper's own, from its digital file; the division into articles was made by machine, so a box or caption can end up inside the article next to it.
Scan page 7
From the ILWU bureaucracy’s point of view, it is one thing to employ the union’s historic contract provision that allows members, for reasons of “health and safety,” to respect third-party picket lines, as ILWU members have done for decades on issues ranging from opposition to the Iraq and Af ghanistan Wars to demands to free Mumia Abu-Ja mal. It is quite another to challenge the bosses and their government on an issue pertaining directly to the ILWU itself—in this case Local 21’s fight against EGT’s government-backed and AFL-CIO-abetted union-busting onslaught.
The occasional one-day ILWU strikes over the years were aimed at expressing workers’ solidar ity with the oppressed and persecuted in the U.S. and around the world. But the one day’s lost pay that ILWU members usually incurred was more than offset by the great majority’s working double or even triple shifts soon afterward to more than make up for the loss.
One could honestly say that the ILWU ranks, among the most highly-paid workers in the coun try, were most often both honored to express their solidarity with radical political causes on the one hand and pleased to take a day off on the other, and especially so because the union faced no employer threats to invoke Taft -Hartley.
We must add here that not all ILWU one-day strikes have been conducted under the union’s “health and safety” contract provisions. The ILWU’s May Day 2008 West Coast antiwar port closure, for example, was a strike in defiance of the PMA and in the face of its threat to invoke Taft-Hartley. To day, the ILWU tops cite this anti-union law to jus tify their effective paralysis in the face of a major ruling-class offensive.
To the very extent that this remains the policy of the ILWU, and virtually all other unions in the coun try, American labor relinquishes its most powerful weapon—solidarity. No single union is capable of taking on the full force of the U.S. government. But the full utilization of the combined forces of all la bor does present more than a formidable obstacle to employer/government abuse. — J.M.
The dynamic set in motion by Local 21’s call for a mass mobilization, already supported by local cen tral labor councils, other ILWU locals, and union bod ies across the country—combined with the youthful ranks of the courageous Occupy movement—might well have resulted in an outcome far exceeding any thing the bosses, their government, and the ILWU of ficialdom had anticipated.
Following the disruption in Seattle, the Seattle-based ILWU Local 19, in accord with the warning against Occupy signaled by McEllrath, passed a lengthy and angry motion denouncing the Occupy movement and breaking all relations with it, while demanding that Occupy leaders come to the union’s hall with a for mal apology. Yet the same local maintained its com mitment to support Local 21 when the EGT scab op eration was at hand. Such is labor’s contradiction, and especially operable in the ILWU, where democratic forms exist to this day allowing the ranks to elect their officers on a yearly basis. In general, those who fail to lead in accord with the interests of the ranks are not long for top posts in ILWU locals. Ruling class and EGT back off The potential for such a serious challenge to the EGT/government offensive, in the context of a grind (continued on page 8, in “Ontario workers rally against concessions and lock-out”)
SOCIALIST ACTION FEBRUARY 2012 7
Scan page 8
News and views from SA Canada Julius Arcott / Socialist Action The Conservative Stephen Harper government has revealed its mean streak once again. In an open letter released on Jan. 9, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oli ver lashed out at environmental organizations, brand ing them as “radicals” who “use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest.”
The letter came on the eve of regulatory hearings into the development of the $5.5 billion Northern Gate way pipeline project, which would see oil flow from the Alberta tar sands to the British Columbia coast, where it would be poured into supertankers bound for Asia and elsewhere. It is one of two proposed tar sands pipe lines, the other being the Keystone XL pipeline to Texas, which was dealt a major setback in January when U.S. President Barak Obama rejected (for now) its proposed route through a sensitive ecosystem in Nebraska. As with Keystone XL, the Northern Gateway poses a serious risk to the environment. The pipeline would pass over the Rocky Mountains and cross 1000 rivers and streams in some of Canada’s most pristine natural sites. It would also cut through 65 First Nations communities,
----- pull-quotes -----
Harper warns against environmental ‘radicals’