Labor and the War: One Large Step Forward

The AFL-CIO’s 2005 Convention’s nearly unanimous passage of a resolution calling for a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq was both a victory for the anti-war movement and a big step forward for the trade union movement.  Even though international issues were largely neglected at the Convention, the resolution’s passage was a clear sign that on the most important foreign policy issue facing American workers, labor speaks with a united voice.  Hospital workers’ union leader Henry Nicholaus , a vice-president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) – whose son is serving in Iraq – declared after the vote, “This is my proudest day as a union member.  I’ve been coming to these conventions for 49 years and this is the first time we’ve had the moral courage to stand up and say, ‘Enough is enough!’”

Marking the distance traveled since the disgrace of AFL-CIO support for the Vietnam war, speaker after speaker denounced this war while not a single delegate rose to speak in favor of the U.S. invasion/occupation of Iraq.  The convention mood was expressed by Communication Workers of America (CWA) Vice President Brooks Sunkett who told delegates that the U.S. government lied to him when he was sent to fight in Vietnam and then added, “we have to stop it from lying to a new generation now.”  His sentiment crosses many lines of division within organized labor, for although this resolution was passed after the Change-to-Win (CTW) unions walked out of the convention, it undoubtedly would have been approved as strongly had they remained.  Anti-war resolutions had previously been approved by the Service Employees (SEIU) and some of the other departing unions – indicative of the fact that this was the first major internal dispute within labor since the onset of the Cold War in which international issues have not been a factor.

The split, however, may have consequences as to how much effort is put into implementing union anti-war positions.  One of the dangers of a divided labor movement is that it may lead to a narrowing of focus – especially if unions begin competing with each other over members or fall prey to the temptation to cut deals at each other’s expense (which, if history is our guide, is a real danger), reducing thereby the union agenda on both political and economic questions to those that seemingly will have the most immediate, direct impact.  A process which, were it to occur, would mean a retreat on many levels, including from the just-passed anti-war resolution.  For if the resolution is to have practical meaning, it should lead to confronting not only anti-labor, pro-war politicians, but also challenging otherwise pro-labor politicians who support the war.

A necessary challenge because the war in Iraq its underlying foreign policy are not only immoral (though they certainly are), it is – as was Vietnam – also a significant cause of the present weakness of organized labor.  Massive arms spending has distorted the economy, hurt many domestic manufacturers, and has undermined public spending on social welfare.  U.S. interference in countries abroad has invariably led to attacks on unions in the invaded country and the opening of their economies to corporate investment.  Profitable for business, and sometimes, briefly, for some workers, but in the long run leading to a loss of jobs and downward pressure on wages at home.  Furthermore, militarism has helped erode respect for democratic rights, civil liberties, trade union rights, while also, time and again, created an atmosphere that leads many working people to vote for candidates opposed to their interests.  All these factors are evident in Iraq, including the basic one that Bush’s 2004 election depended on the jingoism of the so-called “war on terror.”

All this is why it is critical to take the next step, to use the Convention decision as a tool to broaden understanding amongst unionists about the nature of the war and to build membership support for labor’s active participation in anti-war struggles.  To do so, a page can be taken from the group chiefly responsible for the resolution’s passage, U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW), by focusing implementation initially on work with union locals and city/state central labor organizations.  USLAW had done this kind of organizing through its sponsorship of a tour of Iraqi unionists who spoke at public union meetings in two dozen cities where they explained the realities of life under occupation that gave the lie to Bush’s rhetoric of freedom.  The tour, in which three different Iraqi labor federations with conflicting political views – yet all opposed to the U.S. military presence in their country – participated, was also an act of unity from which the divided U.S. labor movement can learn.

Working from the base of the union movement, within existing AFL-CIO, CTW, and individual union structures, not allowing organizational differences to inhibit unity of action, is the best way to continue to build opposition to the war as part of advancing the rest of labor’s agenda.  Acting in that spirit is the way to meaningfully implement declared opposition to the war, the path to take other steps forward in genuine labor political independence, and to ensure that the pride Nicholaus and other unionists felt at the resolution’s passage proves justified.

--Kurt Stand, Petersburg, Virginia

Submitted to Junge Welt October 2005