|
CounterPunch
October
18, 2002
Bush and the Bosses Target Dockworkers
by LEE SUSTAR
Shipping are aggressively using
George W. Bush's intervention in the West Coast dockworkers'
contract dispute to gut the union's power.
Technically, the Taft-Hartley Act invoked
by Bush empowered a federal judge to order employers in the Pacific
Maritime Association (PMA) to end their lockout of 10,500 dockworkers.
But Bush's intervention was aimed squarely at the International
Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU)--and threatens a repeat
of the 1981 PATCO strike, in which then-President Ronald Reagan
fired 11,000 striking air-traffic controllers.
As Socialist Worker went to press,
AFL-CIO leaders were meeting in Washington to plan labor's response
during the 80-day "cooling-off" period imposed under
Taft-Hartley. Meanwhile, employers wasted no time in using the
union-busting weapon that Bush put in their hands.
"We fully expect the PMA to use
all the anti-union provisions of the Taft-Hartley injunction,"
ILWU President James Spinosa said in a statement. "These
80 days will not be a "cooling-off period." The PMA
will start alleging "slowdowns" by Thursday [October
10] and will continue that. Taft-Hartley gives them 80 days of
free shots at the union, and we expect the employers will be
dragging us to court daily, trying to bankrupt the union and
throw our leaders in jail."
That's exactly what Corporate America's
front man, George W. Bush, intended. Just hours before Bush invoked
Taft-Hartley, the White House invited lobbyists from 50 companies
and interest groups--but not labor leaders--to a White House
briefing, the Washington Post reported. Three days earlier,
top officials from the National Association of Manufacturers
had met with Bush to demand that he invoke Taft-Hartley.
Meanwhile, the West Coast Waterfront
Coalition--an alliance of big importers like the Gap, Wal-Mart
and Target--helped to organize a barrage of anti-union stories
in the media. Even supposedly pro-labor Democratic Sen. Dianne
Feinstein (D-Calif.) called on Bush to intervene.
In his October 12 radio address, Bush
claimed that he acted because "the crisis in our Western
ports is hurting the economy" and that "the work stoppage
also threatens our national defense." In fact, the administration
had intervened months earlier, when Homeland Security chief Tom
Ridge called ILWU leaders to threaten that Bush would step in
to prevent a strike on "national security" grounds.
The government also leaked reports that
U.S. Navy longshore workers were being trained as strikebreakers
in San Diego. These harsh measures show that the employers are
out to do more than simply introduce new technology. This contract
demand is a cover for efforts to outsource longshore work to
break the power of the ILWU--whose members handle a staggering
$300 billion worth of goods each year.
For all the media hype about "overpaid"
ILWU members, most earn around $80,000 a year--about what a unionized
autoworker makes with overtime, and a pittance compared to vast
sums pocketed by U.S. CEOs.
The PMA did everything it could to provoke
the ILWU--from stonewalling negotiations to imposing life-threatening
speedups. But after the deaths of five ILWU members already in
2002--compared to one or two in a typical year--workers drew
the line.
A showdown on the Oakland, Calif., docks
last month over management's order for dockworkers to work in
unsafe conditions led to a mass dismissal. With anger building
in the rank and file, ILWU officials instructed members to "work
safely." The PMA responded with a lockout September 29--and
Bush dutifully followed the employers' script by invoking Taft-Hartley.
PMA President Joe Miniace bragged to
the Wall Street Journal that employers would use detailed
information on the productivity of each port terminal and shift
to monitor workers' performance. "Even the slightest slowdown
can be detected," he declared--and become an excuse for
legal action.
In fact, just days after workers returned
to their jobs, the PMA was already accusing the ILWU of a slowdown,
claiming that productivity was 20 to 25 percent below normal.
Yet it was the backlog created by the employers' lockout that
led to a slowdown on the docks--a problem compounded by the PMA's
refusal to hire enough workers to meet the additional demand
or train more workers to become crane operators.
For example, dozens of ILWU members who
showed up October 12 at the Local 13 hiring hall at the huge
Los Angeles port were turned away. The day before, bosses at
the terminal were outraged when an ILWU official ordered a halt
in production for 30 minutes after a truck hit a cart and a union
official was nearly hit by another truck.
And just hours after the nearby Port
of Long Beach reopened October 9, a worker was hospitalized after
being shocked by 480 volts when unplugging a refrigerated container,
the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
These are the miserable conditions that
longshore workers face. But if they fail to meet production standards
arbitrarily imposed by the shipping bosses, the PMA will run
to U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup to crack down on workers.
For years, the PMA has collected data
on workers' productivity on a shift-by-shift, terminal-by-terminal
basis. Now, this will be used as "evidence" in Alsup's
court to try to bankrupt--or break--the ILWU. We can't let them
get away with it.
This assault on the ILWU is an attack
on the entire labor movement--and the rights of working people,
whether or not they belong to a union. It's time to tell Bush
and Corporate America that labor won't bow to intimidation and
threats--and that we'll mobilize to defend our unions.
Ken
Riley on the lessons of the Charleston Five victory:
"We
won because of solidarity"
KEN
RILEY is president
of International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) Local 1422
in Charleston, S.C. He became a nationally known labor leader
as the advocate of the Charleston Five--dockworkers placed under
house arrest for 20 months after a police attack on a legal picket
line of a nonunion ship in January 2000.
Thanks to an international labor solidarity
campaign--including the threat of a dockworkers' day of action
worldwide if the five went to trial--the men won their freedom
a year ago. "The struggle of the Charleston Five showed
that the labor movement is collectively up for the challenge
we face today," Riley told Socialist Worker. "Through
solidarity, we won that struggle."
The first union to offer support was
ILWU Local 10, which sent representatives to deliver a check
for $5,000 to ILA Local 1422 just days after the police attack.
In the months that followed, ILWU members contributed tens of
thousands more dollars to the Charleston Five defense campaign--including
a check for $167,000 even after the five won their freedom.
Despite the objections of some in the
labor movement, the campaign focused on racial justice as well
as workers' rights. Four of the Charleston Five are Black--and
the ILA in Charleston is overwhelmingly African American, in
a state with a history of slavery and racism.
Riley took word of the struggle to local
and national meetings of several unions, including the ILWU,
United Auto Workers, Service Employees International Union, Transport
Workers Union and the Teamsters, as well as civil rights groups
such as the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition.
AFL-CIO President John Sweeney sent a
letter calling on affiliated unions to form defense committees,
and the federation backed a solidarity rally in Columbia, S.C.,
in June 2001. Defense committees raised thousands of dollars
at labor rallies endorsed by local labor councils in San Francisco,
Chicago, Seattle, Cleveland and New York.
"Every facet of what we needed to
win was addressed," Riley said. "We had input from
a variety of sources. We didn't leave one stone unturned."
After September 11 attacks, some in the
labor movement felt that the push for "law and order"
would sideline the issue of the Charleston Five and workers'
rights. But the defense campaign pressed ahead--and prosecutors
finally threw in the towel.
"I think international solidarity
was key," Riley said. "The shippers started to realize
the impact on their business that would take place if solidarity
action would continue to build."
Today, the stakes are even higher--and
we need to apply the lessons of the Charleston Five victory on
a bigger scale.
Lee Sustar
writes for the Socialist
Worker. He can be reached at: lsustar@ameritech.net
Yesterday's
Features
Desmond Tutu
Do I Divest?
Occupation and Apartheid
Dave Marsh
Clay Pigeons:
The Politics of File Sharing
Trey Sager
You Don't
Have to Drop No More Hints, Baby:
I Can Tell You Want Us to Bomb You
Ron Jacobs
Todd Gitlin
Does the Bossman's Work:
Redbaiting the Antiwar Movement
Jackson Thoreau
Karen
Hughes in Texas: Mrs. Nasty
Kurt Nimmo
Snipers,
Predators and the Posse Comitatus Act
Jerre Skog
Identify
the Enemy:
The Business in Bali
New
Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- How to Change the Subject: Corporate Scandal and Pension
Reform as Weapons Against Warmongering;
- Padilla's Predecessor: Court Ruling Cites 1904 War
Against Mining Union;
- Adios Hitchens: the Dorian Gray of Our Time;
- Object of Suspicion: How the FBI Watched Janis Ian
From Birth;
- First Carter, Then Clinton,
Now Sen. John Edwards:
Another "New South" Slimeball;
- Corporate Crooks: Nature or Nurture?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|