[Marxism] ILWU leadership and Clarence Thomas???

[Red Net <dwalters@xxxxxxx>]

Mike D wrote:
        "This explanation makes sense. It seems that the "fear of isolation"
        prevented the ILWU from "fully" opposing the shipment of war material.
In
        order to avoid a confrontation with the administration, they had to
offer
        concessions.  Has this anything to do with the upper ranks of the
union as
        well? I mean, was the decision to continue shipping  a matter of
realism or
        ideology?"

Mike, let's examine the facts...or one important one. The President of
Local 10 at that time was Rich Mead. Rich, immediately after Local 10
and the whole of the ILWU was being locked out in the SF Bay Area,
immediately gave interviews where he stated "Local 10 members are
patriotic and we will, of course, move all military supplies". He
stated the same thing at rallies. Remember, during this period NOTHING
was moving out of the Port of Oakland. I was in the unique position
then of working at a San Francisco power plant that sits along the main
"waiting" area for ships waiting to berth in Oakland. It became a
parking lot of container ships. 16 from one count I did. No military
supplies, nothing was being offloaded. This was of course the fault of
the Pacific Maritime Association members (like scab outfit SSA), not
the ILWU. The ILWU was being falsely accused of 'slowdowns' by
working-to-rule. The ILWU was on the defensive, the war
notwithstanding.

During this time, too, majority of Americans supported Bush. Probably
the majority of trade unionists too (only 15% of so the American people
as it happens). Ergo, at that time, the ILWU was isolated, and not just
among the public, among unions as well, since few unions EVER
functioned militantly the way the IWLU does. Oh, yes, the leadership of
the ILWU internationally was 'pro-war' too, waving the flag, etc. So it
wasn't only the case of the ILWU  "fear of isolation" for "fully"
opposing the war because the ILWU partially *supported* the war
(except, of course, Local 10, and then only by a thin majority).

What else? Floating around Congress was a bill to essentially
militarize the docks in the US, abrogating all union contracts, and
destroying the hiring hall. This bill is still hanging over the heads
of the ILWU and makes Taft-Hartly look like a walk and a picnic. So, it
was a question of both "ideology" and "realism"...realism that one
fights a battle when one has all their ducks in order. The battle was
to win a descent contract against PMA assaults.

Mike D continues:
        "The world socialist web site (on Taft-Hartley Law) seems to imply
that the
        ILWU  somewhat became the administrative arm of the Democratic party.
For
        example, the article says that the union "agreed in principle to the
        elimination of one thounds jobs". It also says that it used the
Democratic
        party as a mechanism of "appeal" in their confrontation with Bush.
        <snip>
        Still wish they had alternative class organizing tactics though..."

The ILWU was no different than any union in the US with regards to the
Democratic Party. They practically ARE the Democratic party in Hawaii
for that matter. But generally the ILWU just does things on their own.
They tend not to be "as tied' to the Democratcs relative to unions that
ARE like SEIU, the Steelworkers, etc.

The development of a class struggle left wing in the ILWU is still on
the agenda. It will, I'm sure, involve people like Clearance Thomas,
Trent Willis and Jack Heyman. But it's not their yet and just wishing
it was ain't gonna make it so...

David



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism