Re: Labor's Failure in D.C.

["Jay Moore" <research@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would have to agree with Daniel.  At the legal rally on Sunday, a lot of
platform air space was given to name speakers from various labor unions --
primarily "leaders" and officials, including the AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka
(formerly head of the UMWA) and the head of the Steelworkers Union, rather
than rank and file activists.  As usual at these kinds of things, I was
listening to the speakers with only one ear.  In general, they seemed to be
laying down a pretty good rap  -- about uniting against the global race to
the bottom, etc. -- and lavishly praised the youth and students for leading
the way in the oppositional movement.  However, from my close observation of
the crowd at the legal rally, which I circulated through a lot taking
photos, and on the subsequent march, the AFL-CIO did diddly-squat to bring
out the membership for this one.  I saw a sprinkling of union jackets and
T-shirts.  But they were relatively few.  The largest labor contingent I
saw -- maybe 30 or 40 folks -- were from the United Electrical Workers --
which, of course, was disaffiliated from the AFL-CIO during McCarthyism.  I
saw some folks from the Labor Party, but even they didn't seem to have much
of a real presence.  Sad but true.

I've been reading Paul Buhle's new book (which I greatly recommend) on the
duplicity/treason of the old AFL-CIO leadership starting with Gompers.
Gompers could sometimes talk like a radical, too, when it served his
interests (even George Meany could).  But action is what counts.  We have
yet to witness much positive action from this new leadership.  Instead in
this D.C. instance, and following right along in the racist footsteps of
their predecessors (see Buhle), they organized a separate, xenophobic type
of demonstration against admitting China to the WTO.  That's what they
mobilized workers for.  We should be glad, I guess, that they only could
mobilize 15,000.  No doubt the Gore factor is important, too.  But look at
the racism of this labor aristocracy.

best,
jay
http://www.neravt.com/left/


----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel O'Connell <dpoconnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 11:22 AM
Subject: Labor's Failure in D.C.


> carole gallaher wrote that:
>
> "There was also a strong union presence.  I saw people with UAW, SEIU, and
Steelworkers t-shirts."
>
> I could not disagree more, and I think this was one of the most
disappointing aspects of the past week's events: To be sure, on Sunday,
there were people present who _happened_ to be members of labor (SEIU it
seemed, for the most part), but Labor _as such_ was not a presence there.
>
> They chose to expend most of their energy in xenophobic ranting against
China earlier in the week (as some on this list have already noted), and on
Sunday, Sweeney and the troops stayed home, for the most part.
>
> I'm not saying that the protests (both legal and illegal) were not a
success: I think they were, for the most part. But our ranks could have
grown by 20-30,000 if Labor had made a conscious decision to turn out en
masse as they did in Seattle. Why they did not turn out remains to be
stated. I would propose the reason in four letters:
>
> G-O-R-E.
>
> You can't endorse Al Gore and then blithely sally forth against the World
Bank and the IMF. Someone ought to be pinning Sweeney to the wall and asking
him, "Which side are you on?" He is moving to the left only in the
imagination of The New York Times.
>
> But I suppose I'm preaching to the choir at this point, so I'll stop...
>
> Regards,
> Daniel Cahill-O'Connell
> OCONNELL@xxxxxxx
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com
> FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net
>