Labor unions against war on Iraq
This summer U.S. unions representing over 4 million workers -- the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the Communication Workers of America (CWA), the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) and the National Letter Handlers Union -- passed resolutions demanding the return of US troops from Iraq. The resolutions passed unanimously or with overwhelming majorities. These unions represent nearly 25% of unionized workers.
The SEIU, the largest AFL-CIO union, with 1.6 million members, stated its support for US Labor Against the War (USLAW) and endorsed its principles calling for "an end to the U.S. Occupation of Iraq." AFSCME, with 1.2 million members said, "AFSCME asks President Bush to bring our troops home from Iraq now." The CWA with 700,000 members "demands that the President abandon his failed policy (of preemptive war) which has made our nation less -- not more -- secure, and support our troops and their families by bringing our troops home safely now ." The American Postal Workers Union "calls for an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the immediate implementation of a plan to turn over sovereignty to the people of Iraq, and the return of U.S. troops to their homes and families."
These resolutions reflect a strong sentiment among working people that the Iraq war is not being fought for their interest but rather for corporate profit and gain. For example, the CWA resolution says: "The massive costs for imposing our will through military power has led to massive budget deficits, and taken funding away from vital programs in the United States. We are spending billions of dollars on building schools, roads, infrastructure and food programs in Iraq and Afghanistan, while funding for schools, highways, transit and social welfare programs in America are facing cutbacks."
Unions represent about 12% of the workforce. They are some of the few institutions left in the society that were created in struggle against the corporations and, despite all their conservative actions, still defend workers' rights to some extent.
It is important that the other 88% of the population hear and read the resolutions of the unions. Given that they represent the sentiments of millions of Americans who work for a living, they should be distributed far and wide in the society. Their voice should be added to the debate dominated by the Democratic and Republican parties and by corporate-owned media -- television, magazines, newspapers and internet news.
The resolutions were usually not proposed by the top leadership; they came from the anti-war activists and West Coast locals that made it difficult for the top leadership to oppose them. The SEIU resolution was from the top leadership.
Action Against the War?
While the resolutions reflect these sentiments, they do not support or call for any action by the unions to win this demand. Most conclude with no action at all. The SEIU resolution states, "SEIU will work with all religious, community, political, and foreign policy groups (such as USLAW) who support the principles outlined in the January 2004 letter to President Bush and further elaborated in this resolution."
The most glaring restriction undercutting these statements is SEIU and AFSCME both featured John Kerry as the keynote speaker at their conventions. The AFL-CIO endorsed Kerry on February 9. The SEIU is devoting enormous resources to getting Kerry elected, including drafting 2,004 members to voluntarily leave their jobs, go on temporary union staff, and campaign for Kerry. These volunteers are called "Heroes."
The resolutions often call for support to the war on terror and for recognition of its importance. The resolutions often complain that the war on Iraq has taken resources from the war on terror. For example, the CWA resolution says: "So far the 'go it alone' approach has cost U.S. taxpayers $144.4 billion for the war in Iraq. This money could have been better spent. Instead of engaging in a war that has already taken a thousand American lives and the lives of countless thousands of Iraqis, we could have spent the money to fund already existing security programs and other measures to strengthen our first responders. We should have spent: $7.5 billion to fund the Maritime Transportation Security Act to safeguard our ports; $4 billion to expedite the upgrade of our Coast Guard; $2 billion for improved cargo security; $10 billion to protect American commercial airliners from shoulder-fired rockets; $5 billion for state-of-art baggage screening machines; $7 billion for 100,000 police officers; $350 million for integrating emergency radio systems; $3 billion to secure major roads and railways; $30.5 billion to secure from theft the world's weapons-grade nuclear material; $2.25 billion to expedite the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program; $24 billion to add two divisions to the Army; $15.5 billion to double the 25,000 active-duty troops in the Special Operations Forces."
Support to the war on terror, advocating a more multi-lateral war effort, is the line of the Democratic Party, more specifically, of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Clinton-Gore-Kerry wing of the party, the wing most closely allied with the transnational corporations and with Bush.
It was under Clinton that the U.S. pushed for and got the World Trade Organization and the Uruguay Round which provoked the spread of the anti-globalization movement to the industrial North. It was Clinton who fortified the sanctions against Iraq and ended "welfare," driving poor mothers and children into the streets and into slave-like wage and working conditions.
None of resolutions challenged union support for Kerry in any way. An accommodation with the leadership was reached. A resolution calling for bringing the troops home, in some cases with the word "now" or "immediately" added, was passed. In return there was no disagreement over the support for Kerry.
So the message from the union conventions was mixed -- it reflected the opposition to the war on Iraq in the working class, but it also undercut that opposition by giving lots of money, time and energy to John Kerry, a pro-war candidate. The resolutions indicate in a clear way the profound problems that the U.S. workers' movement is having in advancing towards a principled stand against the war in Iraq.
To take a principled stand against the war in Iraq will require, as it did during the Vietnam War, the mobilization of millions of workers against the war, against the Democrats, against a complacent top union leadership. A mobilization in the streets, and in the armed forces themselves.
Fred David ~ September, 2004. q