SERVICE EMPLOYEES LEADER SAYS THE WAR IS AN ISSUE TO WORKERS

[Charles Brown <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

SERVICE EMPLOYEES LEADER SAYS THE WAR IS AN ISSUE TO WORKERS By David Bacon

LOS ANGELES, CA (7/30/04) - On June 22 the national convention of the
Service Employees International Union, with 1.7 million members the US'
largest, voted unanimously to oppose the occupation of Iraq. This was
followed a few days later by a similar resolution, passed by another of the
AFL-CIO's largest unions, the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, and then by a resolution passed by the California Labor
Federation, representing one-sixth of all US union members.

The SEIU resolution called for "a just foreign policy based on international
law and global justice...an end to the U.S.

Occupation of Iraq, redirecting the nation's resources from inflated
military spending to meeting the needs of working families...supporting our
troops and their families by bringing our troops home safely...protecting
workers rights, civil rights, civil liberties and the rights of
immigrants...and solidarity with workers around the world.

David Bacon talked with SEIU Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina about
the resolution for Wartimes. The resolution represents SEIU's official
policy, but Medina outlined his own personal views about labor and the war.

DB: Why did SEIU members support the resolution so strongly?

EM: Workers are extremely concerned about our foreign policy. Their kids are
being sent to fight and die, especially the children of immigrants. We need
to deal with this issue.

The Bush administration sold the war with allegations of weapons of mass
destruction. But there were none, and our delegates knew this.

Bush said that Saddam Hussein was connected to the attacks of 9/11, but
there was no connection and our delegates knew this too. The administration
assured people that the troops would waltz in and waltz out, and that
certainly wasn't the case either.

They were especially concerned about the increasing isolation of the US.
They want the US to be seen as a country based on democratic values, and
worry that it's being seen now as a bully. Some delegates spoke out and said
this was a war for oil, not for democracy, and that this was not a valid
reason for waging it. They were very suspicious of the motivation of the
Bush administration.

DB: Did the resolution cause much discussion?

EM: Delegates spoke from their hearts. Our union went through a thorough
debate on the war before the resolution came up, including discussion in
local unions. Our members have a natural tendency to want to stand behind
the troops and their country. Many of them have children or relatives in
Iraq, and felt that we had to support them.

But the more the discussion went on, they more people said they felt misled,
that they were being made patsies. It was very clear they felt this was the
wrong war, being fought for the wrong reasons.

Our members are not a collection of left wing radicals. They're a cross
section of America - blue collar workers, professionals in hospitals,
janitors. We have a large immigrant membership, there's a professional class
of doctors, attorneys and social workers, and a big section of public
workers. Our members are fairly representative of many levels of US society.

DB: Did they feel the war is affecting people here in the US then?

EM: The war is draining resources needed at home, leaving a huge deficit and
leading to the loss of jobs in the public sector I often hear members say
they deeply resent the way the administration announces services it says it
will make available in Iraq, while cutting the same services here at home.
They're very aware that the war doesn't benefit them.

DB: What effect did the resolution have on other unions?

EM: The California state federation of labor adopted a similar resolution
almost unanimously, and that's not just SEIU. It includes building trades
unions and manufacturing workers as well. I hope other unions will now add
their voices too.

I can't speak for the whole labor movment, but many people tell me they feel
we were misled and that the whole war was a huge mistake.

There's a lot of concern about the way it's been waged, and the fact that
there's no plan to achieve peace.

DB: What about the national AFL-CIO - do you expect it to take a position
against the war?

EM: The AFL is a collection of international unions, and what it does
depends on its constituents. The AFL has been very critical of Bush, and
Sweeney condemned Bush's unilateral action without UN support before the war
started. As more unions speak out, it will create the consensus necessary
for the AFL itself to take a position.

If the momentum keeps up, I'm sure it will happen, and I hope before the
election.

DB: Six months ago, many Democratic Party and labor election strategists
said that opposing the war would lead to losing the election to Bush. Do you
agree?

EM: It's wrong to think that speaking out on the war is the kiss of death in
November. At the Democratic Convention I heard many people say they thought
we were heading in the wrong direction, and that we need to do something
about it. The war is one of Bush's many failures. It's had huge
repercussions on the budget deficits, which are overwhelmingly due to two
causes - his tax cuts and the war.

DB: If Kerry is elected, do you think he'll pull US troops out?

EM: The American people will expect him to get us out, and they will hold
him to it too. After all, it's their children coming home in body bags. He
says he has a plan, and we have to hold him to it.

Even with the handover, it's still our war. There no real responsibility
passing to the interim government, and US soldiers are still doing the
fighting. The Iraqi people just want to have their country back. It's time
to bring the troops home.