|
Who will Blink?
When James
Spinosa asked the question about why Bush was threatening to use the military
against West Coast waterfront workers when fighting a war against terrorism he
made a connection between war against enemies overseas and what Bush and most of
the corporate world considers an enemy at home. To them unionism is an enemy at
home. That is true because it challenges corporate profits. They think all wages
should be kept at subsistence level, or in many instances nowadays below. That's
the level where wages were before unions began the slow, dangerous, painful
struggle to organize, strike and make some gains. They were fought at every
turn. In fact the first labor law enacted in the US was one declaring unions
illegal conspiracies. Most corporations believe the same today. Bush agrees.
It was not until after the Great Depression and World War II
that unions gained legitimacy under the Wagner Labor Relations Act and its
National Labor Relations Board. And that came only as a result of huge mass
unemployment movements and riots in the streets during the depression and
millions of workers striking after World War II.
But the corporations never gave up. With their millions in campaign
contributions and high paid lobbyist’s those hard won gains were whittled away
with passage of the Taft-Hartley Act and other legislation infringing on labors'
rights and finally Bush appointing bureaucrats opposed to all union rights. Bush
and his corporate bosses will try to break the ILWU and start the whole process
of lowering living standards as close to the subsistence level as it was before
'34.
They never give up.
But Bush's corporatism cannot win. The ILWU will survive his
anti union conniving and troops. We have the most powerful force in the world on
our side - the strength of solidarity. Unions everywhere are pledging support.
Central to that is full backing of Teamsters, the East Coast ILA, the national
AFL-CIO, and central labor councils all along the coast. But more than that
there are 200 local unions overseas ready to back us all the way. More than that
we have the full backing of the International Transport Workers Federation
Dockers Section representing 400,000 dockworkers in 170 countries. They would
all like to see the butt kicker get a come uppance. If that happens we think it
will something very big and something very new might appear.
We can imagine that: A BETTER WORLD IS POSSIBLE because we
will begin to see that curbing corporate power is the way to go. Working people
and people everywhere are getting fed up. They're tired of corporate CEOs
getting untold millions of dollars for little effort while millions have to work
hard and scrape to get by. People are tired of being jerked around by more and
more demands on their time and energy - of 24/7.
A victory for unionism and a defeat for Bushism would put the people in a
position to explore the idea of having a better world – a world free of war,
poverty, and disease. A world rid of anti-democracy, anti-welfare,
discrimination, recession, unemployment, poor education of youth,
anti-environment, and - you name it!
But what is most important is
the central role of our membership. We are the ones who play the key role in
forcing the PMA to back away from an all or nothing position. From the very
beginning they have said, "agree with all our demands or we will lock you
out." That is not a negotiating position. That is a union busting position.
They know we will never agree to sign our own death warrant.
So we are now working without a contract. Basically each side
is waiting to see if the other will take the next step. Will we go on strike?
Will the PMA pull a lockout? Neither side is ready to make that decision. Who
will blink? If the PMA goes lockout they put themselves at a decided
disadvantage. They would be the bad guys in the eyes of the public, related
industries and of course the entire labor movement. They will be seen as the
disrupters of positive labor relations. Even Bush could not support that. Of
course a lockout could bring Bush intervention on the side of PMA. That may be
their hold card. But even then, they still remain the troublemakers and Bush's
anti-labor position would be crystal clear for all to see.
Will our union hit the bricks? If we do we will only do so
because the PMA refuses to bargain in good faith. We might shut down the docks
but we would do it for a different reason than the PMA. In contrast to the PMA
we are fighting for our union existence and our welfare as workers. We would be
striking to hold our own. The PMA and Bush are fighting to return to nonunion
conditions on the waterfront. In that case we have the advantage of fairness and
striking to enforce the long tradition of positive labor relations on the
waterfront. It would not be hard to make our case for public support, for strong
union support and even from some sections of PMA employers who are anxious to
continue making greater profits from increasing global trade under a fair
contract. In this situation the PMA is the disrupter - we are the good guys.
What then if neither side chooses to make the fatal move -
strike or lockout? In that case we continue to work. We can do that for some
time to come. In this case time seems to be on our side, unless there is a new
terrorist crisis or Bush declares war against Iraq. If either happens Bush will
declare a national emergency and we don't know how that will work out. We would
probably continue working by federal orders presumably under the present
contract until the emergency is lifted. When the emergency will be lifted
depends on the wishes, strength and determination of the people who will oppose
an indefinite extension of warfare without end.
Then the proposition that,
A BETTER WORLD IS POSSIBLE comes alive!
|
