|
THE
RADICAL ILWU
Harry
Bridges said early on, after the union had gained a better wage and living
standard for longshore workers, that he wanted to instill in them a sense of
respectability. The workers had
begun to go from a social status of casuals who were low paid part time workers
whom society considered bums when out of work, to more full timers of more
respectability. The idea took hold. Respectability gained. But it became
something more than Bridges had hoped.
He found later, as he is quoted: "They began to get too respectable
for me." The social standing of longshore status was changing.
It was becoming a job with affluence. The American Dream was being
realized. Cadillac's were replacing used cars.
Homes were replacing apartments. A college education for their children
became possible. Their wives were
dressing in latest fashion. Vacations at more expensive resorts were visited.
And a nest egg in the bank was being accumulated. To sum it all up, it is
estimated that ILWU income is near the upper 2 percent of the national level.
Along
with this came longshore jobs for their children, including women after 1975. A
new generation of waterfront workers took over.
There are even third generation descendants working on the waterfront,
maybe even fourth generationers.
But
for the rest of American workers and the poor, being lower class is becoming a
permanent condition. A quote from
one of the conservative columnists appearing in the Seattle Post Intelligencer,
(1/30/05), by David Brooks, illustrates the point:
“The
problem is that in every generation conditions emerge that threaten to close
down opportunity and retard social mobility. Each generation has to reopen the
pathways to success.”
Economists and sociologists do not all agree, but it does seem there is at
least slightly less movement across income quintiles than there was a few
decades ago. Sons' income levels correlate more closely to those of their
fathers. The income of brothers also
correlate more closely. That
suggests that the family you were born into matters more and more how you will
fare in life. That's a problem because we are not supposed to have a hereditary
class structure in this country. So what is the point of all this? The point is
that some of ILWU members are now voting Republican, failing to recognize that
the Republican
program
is to make social immobility ( loss of upward financial mobility) permanent. They have taken
respectability to its ultimate. Affluence has had its insidious inconsequence.
They have cast their lot with Republican permanent poverty.. They may not
realize it, but that is what it is. They may not see it that way. They may think
they only want to vote "respectable." They want all the gains and
advantages of the ILWU, but not the label of radical unionism. They want
respectability.
Well,
if they want total, anti-union respectability, they have to realize it comes at
a cost - the cost of weakening the union and loss of many of its hard won gains.
They are becoming like the antiunion, anti-democracy of the Republican party and
its Bush anti-union goals. They
would, of course, deny that is what they're after.
No longshore worker, no matter how deluded, would go that far. Their
affiliation with Republicanism is a matter of feeling rather than reason.
Reason says stay with the proven record of ILWU gains; but feeling takes
over when affluence clouds the mind. Just as some members feel in favor of
voting Republican, they may not realize at the same time they are voting against
the many gains in social welfare of the Democratic party.
They no doubt feel it is more "respectable", or
"value-based", or "religious" to vote Republican.
They fail to realize that the gains of the ILWU, which gave them their
affluence and respectability, came as a direct result of radical
unionism. As we all know, our union
has been labeled “radical” or “left-
wing”
or “red”
from its very beginning. It has
taken advanced positions on everything from support for higher wages,
benefits and pensions,
social
welfare, peace and prosperity, to condemnation of war in Korea, Vietnam and
Iraq, plus the welfare of the country as a whole. Every one of those radical
positions has proved to be in the interests of the American people and workers.
The ILWU has given its members the highest living standard of any union, bar
none.
As
for being radical, Harry Bridges even took a public position against the
capitalist system when appearing before one of the congressional hearings trying
to deport him in the fifties. When asked by one of the investigators if he was a
communist he replied, on the public record that he was neither a communist or
socialist, but "he was anti-capitalist".
He was anti-capitalist, he said, because capitalism was based upon
profits for the rich through exploitation and impoverishment of workers.
He
was further asked if he would favor a communist system. He replied it was up to
the American people to vote for a different system of their choice.
It would have to come through a democratic method.
Fortunately,
the Republicans in the ILWU are far outnumbered. We don't have the figures on
how many in our ranks voted Republican, but it is no doubt in the single digits.
Their votes are not enough to change ILWU policy and practice. For
instance on the issue of for or against the Iraq war, the International
convention of the ILWU, May 1, 2003 passed a resolution that says, in part:
“OPPOSITION
TO THE U.S. OCCUPATION OF IRAQ
RESOLVED:
That we demand that the U.S. military immediately withdraw
from Iraq and the Middle East and recognize the right of the Arab peoples
to
self-determination
free of
foreign interference.”
That
is the tradition and policy of the ILWU that has won so much for so many.
It behooves all ILWU members to understand the power of left-wing
unionism. Adopted
by the labor movement at large, it would change this country from one wallowing
in Republican lies, war mongering and fiscal crisis, to a nation of peace,
prosperity and middle class values for all.
Abraham
Lincoln is quoted
as saying,"
I hold the
value of life is to improve one's condition." That is the value of
unionism. It is more so the value of
radical unionism.
Long live the ILWU!
|
