Labor's
Gotta Play Hardball to Win! ILWU to Shut Down West Coast Ports May 1 to Protest War (March 2008). click on photo for article
|
May 2008 Historic
ILWU Dock Workers’ Action Points the Way
May
Day Strike Against the War
Shuts Down All U.S. West Coast Ports Harbor cranes idle and boomed up. Picket at entrance to rail yards at Port of Oakland during May 1 West Coast longshore port shutdown demanding an end to war in Afghanistan and Iraq and withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the Near East. (Internationalist photo) “We
did it, we shut down the Coast,” union speakers told the cheering crowd
kicking
off a rally at Justin Herman Plaza in San Francisco after a march from
the hall
of International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 10 along
the
Embarcadero. All 29 West Coast ports were closed May 1 as a result of
the
action by the ILWU ranks to demand a stop to the war and occupation of
Iraq and
Afghanistan, and the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from the
Middle East.
Longshoreman Jack Heyman, a member of the Local 10 executive board,
recalled a
local radio announcer who used to say, “if you don’t like the news,
then go out
and make your own.” “Today we’ve not only made news, we’ve made
history,”
Heyman told the crowd of dock workers and supporters. They had indeed.
On the
fifth anniversary of President George Bush’s ill-fated “mission
accomplished”
speech, workers used their industrial power against the war. The ILWU’s historic May Day walkout is the
first time ever that an
American union has struck against a U.S. war. Everywhere on the docks, the giant
container
cranes had their booms raised, showing they were not working, as if
saluting
the longshore workers’ action. It was a dramatic show of strength that
the
ruling class can’t ignore or dismiss. The union ranks defied the
rulings of an
arbitrator, who twice ordered them to go to work. They overcame the
capitulations of the ILWU leadership, which didn’t want the work
stoppage in
the first place, tried to water it down
and cowered before the threats of legal action while
waving the flag.
The employers’ Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) declared the May 1
port
shutdown an “illegal strike.” But after all the huffing and puffing
from the
bosses’ mouthpieces, the dock workers pointed the way to defeating the
imperialist war by mobilizing working-class power. In
the end, it was more than a work stoppage. The dock workers’ May
Day
strike against the war was a first step, a show of what it will
take to
bring down the warmongers in Washington. Their “symbolic” action was
felt all
the way to Iraq, where dock workers in two ports stopped work in
solidarity
with the ILWU. A May Day message from the General Union
of Port
Workers in Iraq to the “brothers and sisters of the ILWU” stated: “The
courageous decision you made to carry out a strike on May Day to
protest
against the war and occupation of Iraq advances our struggle against
occupation
to bring a better future for us and for the rest of the world as
well.... We in
Iraq are looking up to you and support you until the victory over the
US
administration’s barbarism is achieved.” The sight of Iraqi and American workers
joining hands
in common action is a powerful show of what could come. These are not
empty
words on paper. Iraqi and American dock workers have just shown the
world: this
is what proletarian international solidarity looks like. Having
demonstrated this, we must now generalize it and deepen it. Importantly,
the dock workers’ May Day action was not restricted to narrow “labor”
issues.
The attractive poster for the longshore union action produced by the
Inkworks
Press Collective for the Port Workers May Day Organizing Committee
linked the
struggle to “Defend Worker Rights! Defend Immigrant Rights!” At the
ILWU rally
in Justin Herman Plaza, speakers called on demonstrators to attend
immigrant
rights marches later in the day, while speakers from the union
addressed
immigrants’ rallies on both sides of the Bay. The port shutdown was not
simply
a West Coast event. Postal workers in San Francisco, New York City and
Greensboro, North Carolina held moments of silence. The Vermont and
South
Carolina state AFL-CIO federations passed motions of solidarity, urging
workers
to undertake antiwar action on May Day. Chapters of the Professional
Staff
Congress at the City University of New York called events in solidarity
with
the ILWU action on eleven campuses of this largest urban public
university in
the U.S. Nor
was the ILWU’s appeal nationally limited. The union received messages
of
support from around the globe: from the Doro-Chiba rail workers in
Japan;
Australian dock workers; the International Transport Workers
Federation;
Liverpool and Brent trades union councils, UNITE and the National Shop
Stewards
Network in Britain; Conlutas and Intersindical labor federations in
Brazil, and
the SEPE teachers union in the state of Rio de Janeiro, among others.
On May
Day in Rome, Italy, stickers were distributed by a group of American
antiwar
activists with the message: “We ♥ ILWU.” And above all, there were the
powerful
messages and courageous work stoppages by dock workers in Iraq. The
Internationalist Group and League for the Fourth International have
fought for
years for transportation workers to “hot cargo” war materiel
and for workers
strikes against the war. We encouraged and publicized the ILWU
union’s
decision to act as soon as it was announced, so that it wouldn’t be
buried by
bureaucratic inaction or outright sabotage. The West Coast longshore
workers’
action dramatically demonstrated that workers action against
imperialist war is
possible, and we are proud to have contributed to bringing this about. West
Coast dock workers decided to “stop work to stop the war.” Now unions
everywhere should be mobilized to follow the ILWU’s lead in fighting
use
labor’s muscle to defeat the bosses’ war. This
requires not only industrial action but a political offensive
against the
Democrats and Republicans, the partner parties of American imperialism.
The bourgeois and petty-bourgeois “alternatives,” such as the Greens
and Peace
and Freedom that sprout in the lush flora and fauna of California
politics,
only serve to restrict opposition to the confines of bourgeois
electoral politics.
A revolutionary workers party would seek to mobilize the
working
class independent of and against all the capitalist parties,
advancing
class-struggle actions such as the ILWU’s antiwar port shutdown, and
leading
them toward a struggle for working-class power. Against the
star-spangled
rhetoric of the “peace is patriotic” crowd, such a party would fight
for international
socialist revolution. “No
Peace, No Work” May Day The
decision to make May 1 a “No Peace, No Work Holiday” was taken at the
February 8
conclusion of the ILWU’s Longshore Coast Caucus, the highest
decision-making
body of the waterfront division, made up of delegates elected by the
rank and
file. The motion for union action against the war, authored by Heyman
of Local
10, was passed overwhelmingly, by a vote of 97 to 3. Key to the
lop-sided vote
was the support of Vietnam veterans, some of them politically
conservative, who
said that the war had to be stopped, whatever it took. There was a lot
of anger
at the Democrats, who won control of both Houses of Congress in the
November
2006 mid-term elections on the strength of an antiwar vote. But once in
control
of the purse-strings, the Democrats kept on voting hundreds of billions
of
dollars for the Pentagon war effort. In
the run-up to May Day, the maritime employers tried to use the threat
of legal
action to intimidate the dock work workers. In late March, they got an
arbitrator to rule that the action could not be a regular monthly “stop
work”
meeting. On April 8, the union leadership withdrew its request for time
off,
but plans for the work stoppage continued. The PMA requested an
injunction, but
a judge threw it out. On the eve of the action, the maritime bosses
tried
again: “A day earlier, an independent arbitrator sided with waterfront
terminal
operators and other employers who suspected a job action was in the
works, and
ruled that halting work would be a contract violation. The ILWU was not
dissuaded” wrote the San Francisco Chronicle (2 May). A
day before, Steve Getzug, a spokesman for the West Coast shippers
declared,
“We’re anticipating that May 1 is a regular work day.” The terminal
operators’
anticipation was wrong. “The directive [to report to work as usual],
however,
was apparently ignored by the union's rank and file,” reported the Long
Beach Press-Telegram.
Up and down the Coast, the workers were no-shows. “Port in San Diego
shut down
as dock workers go on one-day strike to protest the war in Iraq,” read
a
Reuters dispatch. “There were locked gates and few trucks at the Port
of Seattle
on Thursday despite an arbitrator's order telling dockworkers not to
take the
day off for May Day protests,” broadcast KIRO-TV. Fox-TV in Los Angeles
showed
images of idle ports from Tacoma to L.A. In article titled,
“Dockworkers take
May Day off, idling all West Coast ports,” the Los Angeles Times
(2 May)
quoted a history professor saying: “This union looks at itself as the
vanguard
of the working class on the West Coast.” The
media reported that the day shift stop-work action by the 25,000 ILWU
dock workers was
solid everywhere. More than 10,000 containers a day and other cargo
would
normally be handled by 6,000 longshoremen. “There’s no work happening
so that
means there’s no cargo being unloaded and certainly being loaded
either,”
lamented Getzug of the PMA. During the 2002 lockout by the maritime
bosses, it
was estimated that economic losses around the country were a billion
dollars a
day. At the Los Angeles-Long Beach ports, “America’s trade gateway to
Asia,”
handling 40 percent of all imports coming into the U.S., the Long Beach
Press-Telegram
(2 May) reported that “operations at most shipping hubs were at a
standstill
most of the day.” A spokesman for the Southern California Maritime
Exchange
said 18 ships were scheduled to arrive May 1, and another 12 were
already
berthed. Holding a ship idle in port for a day costs around $100,000. All quiet on the docks. One of several
ships berthed at port of Oakland during May Day port shutdown. (Internationalist photo) In
the San Francisco Bay Area, all 34 cranes in the port of Oakland were
shut
down, most of them with their booms up. Port authorities tried to
minimize the
impact, saying there was only one ship in port, but we observed at
least four
berthed at the docks and from the Bay Bridge you could spot several
others in
the harbor. Stevedoring Services of America (SSA) tried to run a
skeleton crew,
evidently to show it wasn’t affected by the union action. But ILWU
members
rushed to the terminal early in the morning and shut down the scab
operation
before it started. Bay
Area Direct Action Against the War set up picket lines with some 60
protesters
at the two entrances to the Santa Fe-Burlington Northern rail yards. At
7th
Street, a couple dozen members of United Transportation Union Local 239
didn’t
cross, some deciding to show up late for work while others left for the
day. At
the entrance off Middle Harbor Road, truckers lined up, many refusing
to cross
the line. Most were Latino independent “owner”-operators, who get
barely $80 a
box, hardly enough to cover the skyrocketing cost of fuel. They were
uniformly
supportive of the picketers. A Teamster driver told The
Internationalist,
“All power to them, they’re really doing it. Somebody needs to stop the
war.”
He recalled the struggle by janitors at Century City in Los Angeles a
decade
and a half ago, which eventually led to their unionization. At
the Local 10 union hall across the Bay in San Francisco, members were
gathering
for the march along the Embarcadero. The turnout exceeded all
expectations. The
ILWU contingent included many who had never demonstrated before. As a
couple
hundred union members filed out of the hall, there were a thousand
people
waiting for them in the street. The march stepped off with the Local 10
Drill
Team in the lead doing their precision routines. A band struck up
Solidarity
Forever. There were banners from the Oakland Education Association
(OEA), UTU
Local 1741 and other unions. Anarchist, syndicalist and socialist
groups
participated. There were students who walked out from S.F. State
University. It
was very S.F.: in front of the ILWU’s May Day 2008 banner marched a
group of
unionized dancers (SEIU Local 790) from the Lusty Lady strip club in
North
Beach with signs proclaiming “Exotic Dancers Solidarity with ILWU.” The rally was held in Justin Herman Plaza, near where two longshoremen were killed by cops on “Bloody Thursday,” 5 July 1934, setting off the San Francisco general strike. The crowd was most animated when actor Danny Glover read from Martin Luther King’s speech against the Vietnam War calling for a “radical revolution in values” and restructuring of the U.S. economy. A powerful message was played from Mumia Abu-Jamal, on death row in Pennsylvania for over a quarter century, who saluted the ILWU action (see accompanying box). Jamal cited the words an earlier class-war prisoner, Socialist leader Eugene V. Debs: “It is the master class that declares war, it is the subject class that fights the battles.” Class Struggle vs. Popular Front
If
the port shutdown and march showed the power of the S.F. labor
movement, the
rally showed many of its weaknesses. While disappointment with the
Democrats
fueled the vote for the antiwar stop-work action, the unions are still
chained
to the capitalist parties, particularly through the labor bureaucracy.
Among
the speakers were former Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, now
running
for the Green Party nomination for president, who praised the longshore
workers
for “drawing a line in the sand” while appealing to “my former
colleagues” in
Congress to stop the “Bush-Pelosi war”; by Cindy Sheehan, the antiwar
activist
whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, who is running for Congress in
S.F. as an
independent against Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi; and by an
aide to
Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee, hailed for casting the lone vote
against
the declaration of war on Afghanistan (although two weeks later she
voted for
the war budget). A
number of union speakers made “butter not guns” appeals, linking budget
cuts in
education and social services to the war. Yet a real fight against the
war on
Iraq and Afghanistan is not about budget cuts. It’s about U.S. torture
and
state terrorism, about colonial occupation and U.S. imperialist
domination of
the world. Fighting against attacks on education and other social
services, or
demanding health care for all, is certainly in order, as part of a
broader
class struggle. But to pose opposition to the war as if it is a matter
of
spending priorities is saying that the speakers only want to change
policies,
or at most “reform” the economy. It is an appeal to the Democrats to
shape up
and oppose Bush, which is what the popular-front antiwar movement is
all about.
Taken together with calls to “support the troops by bringing them home
safely,”
this amounts to a loyalty oath, when what’s needed is sharp class
struggle to defeat
the U.S. imperialist war and bring down the capitalist
system that
produces war after war. The
“social-patriotic” appeal was explicit in a letter read to the crowd
from ILWU
president Bob McEllrath saying that “Longshore workers are
standing-down on the
job and standing up for America. We’re supporting the troops and
telling
politicians in Washington that it’s time to end the war in Iraq.”
Saying, “Big
foreign corporations that control global shipping aren’t loyal or
accountable
to any country,” McEllrath declared: “But longshore workers are
different.
We’re loyal to America, and we won’t stand by while our country, our
troops,
and our economy are destroyed by a war that’s bankrupting us to the
tune of 3
trillion dollars.” This has been the tune of the ILWU bureaucrats from
the
outset, wrapping themselves in the Stars and Stripes in order to make
the port
shutdown as inoffensive as possible to U.S. rulers. This only undercuts
the
impact of the longshore workers’ action, which is why the union
tops make
these appeals, to denature and defang the strike they never wanted. Co-chairmen of Port Workers May Day
Organizing Committee Clarence Thomas (left) and Jack Heyman (at
microphone). (Internationalist photo) ILWU
Local 34 president Richard Cavalli told the crowd that “this war is not
going
to end because of the politicians we put in office two Novembers ago,
who have
failed miserably.” It is certainly true that the Democrats are not
going to
stop the war, since they are now the main war party fueling
the Pentagon
in Washington. But they have hardly “failed” – they are doing their
class duty,
as representatives of U.S. imperialism. Alone among the speakers, Jack
Heyman
of Local 10, called for “a working-class party, a workers party to
fight for
the interests of workers.” It’s no accident that he not only wrote the
resolution calling for the “No Peace, No Work Holiday,” but also
originated the
call for the ILWU’s previous shutdown of West Coast ports, demanding
freedom
for Mumia Abu-Jamal. Heyman said there and in a subsequent interview
with the
“Democracy Now” program on Pacifica Radio, that “what this action was,
was
raising the level of struggle from protest to resistance.” That is a
pretty
accurate description, and it raises the challenge ahead: to go from
resistance to a struggle for power, to drive out the warmongers,
the racist
oppressors and exploiters and put the working class in power, here and
internationally. It
has been obvious from the outset that there has been a split between
the union
ranks and the leadership over the port shutdown. We noted in our first
(March
1) article on the action, “The ILWU leadership could get cold feet,
since this
motion was passed because of overwhelming support from the delegates
despite
attempts to stop it or, failing that, to water it down or limit the
action”
(see “ILWU to Shut Down West Coast Ports to Protest War”, reprinted in
the
special issue of The Internationalist [19 April]). We noted how
the bureaucrats reduced the walkout from 24 hours to eight hours. And
we warned how the
ILWU tops would try to distort the action with star-spangled rhetoric,
even
though there isn’t a word of social-patriotism in the Longshore Caucus
resolution and not one speaker at the Caucus appealed to support the
troops. We
have also pointed out how the opportunist left for years has dismissed
the
fight for workers strikes against the war as an ultraleft pipedream
[see “Why
We fight for Workers Strikes Against the War (and the Opportunists
Don’t)” in
the same issue]. Now that there has actually been a workers strike
against the
war, no thanks to these fakers, they will deny that what’s needed is to
broaden
and deepen these workers actions into a fight for workers revolution. No Substitute for a
Revolutionary Party The
success of the strike against the war in the
U.S. was due centrally to the determination of the most militant
sectors of the
ILWU membership to take a stand. They refused to back down in the face
the
shilly-shallying by their leadership before the threats of the PMA
bosses. The
overwhelming sentiment against the war in the union ranks held the
union
bureaucrats in check so that instead of calling off the action, as they
dearly
wanted to do, they tried to duck threats of legal action by making the
strike
formally a matter of individual “conscience.” But this fooled no one.
In
various interviews, the PMA spokesman complained: “We are severely
disappointed
that the union leadership failed to keep its end of the bargain.” “It’s
of more
concern to us because it signals something that is more sinister.” “Is
this a voluntary
war protest or a strike aimed at leveraging labor negotiation? We're
not
sure.... We're concerned. We thought these kinds of old tricks were a
thing of
the past.” The reality is that this was an organized workers’ action
from top
to bottom in which the union as a whole stood firm. That’s why it was
successful, and why the message it sends is powerful: for workers
action to
stop the war. The Internationalist Group contributed
significantly to the success of this first-ever strike by American
workers against
U.S. imperialist war by insistently propagandizing for such
class-struggle
action over the last decade; by intervening directly among Bay Area
dock
workers for industrial action against the war (fighting for
“hot-cargoing” of
war materiel, particularly during the 2002 PMA lockout, fighting for
antiwar
strikes at a December 2002 Bay Area labor conference, and building the
October
2007 Labor Conference to Stop the War called by Local 10); and by
encouraging
practical steps to arrive at this goal, which required several years of
preparation. With the initiative of the IG, our general calls and
particular
suggestions, we sought to mobilize the power of organized labor, which
alone
could turn this class-struggle program into reality. And on May Day
2008, the
workers of the ILWU did just that: they made the first step toward a
workers
offensive to bring the war of colonial occupation in Iraq and
Afghanistan to a
grinding halt. In doing so they also struck a blow against the assault
on
democratic rights and the bosses’ war on immigrants, oppressed racial
minorities and working people “at home.” Now it is necessary to go beyond this vital
beginning to generalize the struggle for working-class action to defeat
the
imperialist war abroad and on the home front. This requires the
building of a class-struggle
opposition within the unions and mass organizations of the working class
(including non-unionized immigrant workers) to oust the pro-capitalist
misleaders who have sold out one labor gain after another. They are
incapable
of withstanding the capitalist offensive because they support the
capitalist
system, particularly through their support to the Democratic Party (and
even,
in some cases, the Republicans). Today, with their policies of class
conciliation and collaboration, these “labor statesmen” are presiding
over the
relentless destruction of the labor movement itself. Meanwhile,
“community
leaders” tie immigrants to their exploiters through foundation grants
and
government-financed “non-governmental organizations” (NGOs). Such
misleaders
can never revive the workers movement or achieve full rights for
immigrants. Above all, as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
emphasized in the Communist Manifesto, “every class struggle is
a
political struggle.” Engels wrote in his 1883 introduction to the Manifesto
that
Marx’s core concept was that in the history of class struggles, “a
stage has
been reached where the exploited and oppressed class – the proletariat
– cannot
attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling
class – the
bourgeoisie – without, at the same time, and once and for all,
emancipating
society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinction,
and
class struggles.” Thus in order to win against the exploiters, the
working
class must break with narrow trade-unionism and become the champion of
all the
oppressed. It must lead the struggle against imperialist war, it must
fight for
full citizenship rights for all immigrants and mobilize its power to
stop the
raids and deportations. A class-conscious workers movement must fight
for black
liberation and oppose each and every instance of police brutality; it
must
stand for the liberation of women from double, and often triple,
oppression. To carry out these tasks will take a real
revolution
in workers’ consciousness, which can only come about through the
intervention
of a party of the proletarian vanguard which, as Lenin defined its
tasks, must
act as a “tribune of the people” rather than a trade-union secretary.
We seek
to build the nucleus of such a revolutionary workers party through
propaganda,
through education of future cadres, and through active intervention in
the
class struggle. This struggle is far from easy, and has seen many
setbacks,
from the bloody defeat of the Paris Commune, to Stalin’s victory over
Trotsky
and over Lenin’s program of international socialist revolution, to the
counterrevolution that destroyed the Stalinized Soviet Union and the
bureaucratically deformed workers states of East Europe. Yet the class
struggle
does not let up, and after every setback the working class must take
stock,
analyze its mistakes and rearm politically. When we have successes,
such as
this first workers strike against the war in U.S. history, we must warn
of the
limited and temporary nature of such partial victories and prepare for
new
battles ahead. Today “anti-party” sentiment has become
fashionable
among petty-bourgeois leftists. Yet the West Coast dock workers’
antiwar port
shutdown did not fall from the sky. The ranks’ militancy was there, but
for
years it has been stymied by the bureaucracy, the “labor lieutenants of
capital,” in Daniel De Leon’s famous phrase. Someone fought for workers
strikes
against the war, while others did not. Not only opportunist
pseudo-socialists
but also many syndicalists and anarchists originally dismissed reports
of the
port shutdown. As Trotsky wrote in his pamphlet Lessons of October
(1924), summarizing the experience of the Russian Revolution of 1917
and the
failure of repeated revolutionary attempts in Germany from 1918 to
1923:
“Without a party, apart from a party, over the head of a party, or with
a
substitute for a party, the proletarian revolution cannot conquer. That
is the
principal lesson of the past decade.” That lesson is no less valid
today, as we
in the League for the Fourth International seek to reforge the world
party of
socialist revolution. ■
To
contact the League for the
Fourth
International or its sections,
send an e-mail to: internationalistgroup@msn.com
|