The unanimous decision by the AFL-CIO Executive Council to oppose the Bush administration’s Iraq policy reflects an historic watershed in the labor movement. The late February statement did not oppose a multilateral war against Iraq under all circumstances, nor did it reject unilateral military action “in defense of our national security.” But it represents a break in a long tradition of… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (15)Page 1 of 1 pagesI think it may be time for me to resign from the APWU. I support the President and our military. To all the military and their families, thank you and may God bless you. My freedoms sure out weigh any silly afl-cio labor movement . God Bless America.. By the way if not for our military you would not be allowed to protest anything.
Posted by R.J.B on Mar 22, 2003 at 3:15 AM The stand of the APWU makes me puke…We got an anti Bush council that is using it’s hatred of Bush towards our Military Boys….. I got almost 30 yrs. in and i’ll cut my ties real quick..Again the APWU ex. board makes me SICK
Posted by R.E.D. on Mar 22, 2003 at 11:00 AM I am dumbfounded at the shallowness of understanding exhibited by the American public, and especially, the American press at how manipulative the Bush administration has become. The hawks of this administration have found a puppet for their own means in George W. I am reminded of how fast Bush rose to the top of the field of the Republican Primaries prior to the 2000 elections. At first, I felt his ascension was the result of having superior financial resources versus the other opponents. However, I am convinced that there is a core group of ultra-conservatives who have found a shallow, unquestioning mind in George W. As a union officer, a federal worker, and father of two children, I fear the power that this administration wields, and the ignorance of our citizens, who frozen in fear, believe so much of the rhetoric spewed by Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condelleza Rice, and others.
Posted by glen chandler on Mar 23, 2003 at 4:28 AM as a member of a union and the afl.cio you stick you war views up your ass I support our troops and don’t you speak for me you anti american assholes. comunist bastards BUSH 2004
Posted by bob baggesen on Mar 23, 2003 at 6:34 AM The majority of the APWU membership, as do the majority of Americans, support our President and our brave troops. How dare the APWU leadership take such a position, which the vast majority of its’ membership does not support. Mr. Burris, get in touch with your membership, before you really have financial problems when we all quit the union.
Posted by David Dreher on Mar 24, 2003 at 12:17 PM I have several comments relating to the previois postings, so I will try to organize them coherently. I must disagree slightly with Mike Mannix. While the Knights of Labor did hold more tolerant views of women and blacks than many AFL craft unions and other brotherhoods, e.g. the railroad Brotherhoods, the K of L fought hard for and won legislation to eliminate “bonded” labor, which came from overseas already signed to contracts to work in America. To a certain degree, this was based on the prevailing nativist sentiment of the nineteenth century. (see Powderly Papers) Also, many unions eagerly jumped aboard the war bandwagon during World Wars 1 and 2, especially 2, when even Walter Reuther flashed his brilliant understanding of mechanized production to government and business leaders to show how planes and tanks could be mass produced. (see Lichtenstein, Labor’s War at Home) I do think that Mike makes good points, however, and there are enough examples in labor history, such as with United Electrical Workers, ILWU, and others, to justify his good points.
I also quite agree with Glen Chandler, and share his concerns about this administration and its many objectionable policies. I think that it is important to remember what administration is prosecuting this war, and how it serves as cover for regressive taxation, stridently antiunion policies, chronic defunding of important social institutions and systems, such as educational systems, roads, bridges, and health care; and frankly corporate crime. These reasons alone, aside from strong moral objections to war except in the most dire circumstances such as self-sefense, which this is most assuredly not, should be enough to give union members pause when our empty-headed president attempts to speak.
Simply put, working people increasingly feel that their interests, as citizen workers (to borrow from eminent labor historian David Montgomery) are not at all served by the Bush administration. Change is coming, and people will not continue to tolerate the deaths of either Americans or Iraqis, particularly when our economy goes from bad to worse as a direct consequence of Bush’s Pavlovian propensity for war and conflict.
Kudos to David Moberg, one of the finest and unfortunately few labor journalists in America.
Posted by Jason K. on Mar 25, 2003 at 3:53 AM A very well written story but there is another side. I am 57 years old,a Vietnam Veteran and a union steward for over 36 years. Many union members, including myself, are getting a little tired of the AFL-CIO or other large unions making decisions for us without a survey or vote. Being a member of the AFL-CIO I am in disagreement with there opinion and embarrassed. They do not speak for all union members and I am one member that is getting fed up with there opinions. They should be concentrating on worker benefits and working conditions not disgracing us with anti American marches.
Posted by Bill Sindelar on Mar 26, 2003 at 3:41 AM Addressing Jerry Hampton’s comments, I wonder if he would be as openly critical of the APWU leadership if it had adopted a pro-war stance. There seems to be the implication that unions, when taking stances that some consider unpopular, are using “the APWU (in this instance) as a political platform,” or “using it’s [sic] hatred of Bush against our Military Boys,” as R.E.D. said. Unions have as much right as any other organization to participate in the political process, and it is about time that they did so in a manner that is critical of standing administrations. Unions have even more duty to speak out against rabidly antiunion Bush and his party’s blatant attempts to transfer untold billions of dollars to wealthy Americans who need it far less than working people represented in unions such as APWU.
I also take strong exception to many of the comments posted here that equate antiwar sentiments with antiamericanism, which is frankly a term that has no place in America, a place where freedoms apply to all equally, at least in theory. Practice, here at least, leaves something to be desired. People who are antiwar love this country with all their hearts, and do not want to see people on either side of this undeclared war harmed. These people also worry, not without reason, that this undeclared war will only inflame the very spiteful sentiments that motivated the September 11 terrorist acts. Antiwar protesters include many parents of current and former soldiers, all of whom completely understand the duties of soldiers on the battlefield, yet oppose the policies that put our fine soldiers unnecessarily in harm’s way. Our version of patriotism as just as valid and heartfelt as those who support this war, and our freedoms stem from tolerance for mutual expression, not from simplistic sloganeering or specious justifications for wars for resources, strategic control, and regime change that have been opposed widely when exposed to popular scrutiny.
I fully respect the rights of free speech and expression. It’s about time that others, particularly those pro-war right-wingers, did the same.
Posted by Jason K. on Mar 26, 2003 at 3:43 AM I continue to urge people to see the connections between Bush and the GOP’s fervent desire for war and war funding, his gouging tax cuts in the spurious attempt to jumpstart the economy (as if this money would be spent or invested by wealthy people in the same widespread manner that tax abatements and pay raises would be for working-class Americans…), his antiunion antipathy, and the now chronic defunding of much-needed social spending. This country is rotting from within while vacuous semiliterate ideologues such as President Bush urge us to war, despite the fact that sanctions were working. This war is widely unpopular, especially among the silent majority of Americans who see it as unnecessary and murderous for both sides, yet are cowed by bullying zealots who paint the world with a specious, pseudomoralistic chiaroscuro that casts well-meaning concerned antiwar citizens as unpatriotic.
Space constraints forced me to post this separate from my previous posts…
Posted by Jason K. on Mar 26, 2003 at 3:44 AM Wow, Bob Baggeson,
That’s telling em.
Telling them what, though? Do you agree with a president whose father signed into law NAFTA? Who is willing to give his buddies contracts in Iraq instead of making the bids open like they should be? Who goes against the Constitution?Labor IS a big part of this. The mask being used is this “patriotic” bullshit our president has thrown over threal reasons he’s at war: For political gain, to control more oil, to elminate the middle class and screw the poor.
See, I thought labor unions were against that kind of thinking, that kind of “here’s a nickle for your efforts, kid!” mentality.Yes, this war affects every aspect of this nation from that dickfuck pResident’s cutting of veteran’s benefits, screwing the poor with privatizing then raping Social Security, cutting education, further increasing our dependance on foreign oil and the labor movement. He’s trying to blind us into thinking this is a war for freedom and protection, when in reality it’s nothing but.
Hitler used the same tactics to rouse the people into fervent nationalism and total support for invading Austria, then Poland, then later Russia, because they feared and hated the “Bolsheviks”.
Wake up, please.
Posted by neil on Apr 24, 2003 at 10:13 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Moberg
- Out of Control
Too big to regulate, the banks need to be broken up. - Labor’s New Leader
The AFL-CIO stakes its future on Richard Trumka. - The Retail Devolution
Two new books explore corporate evil. - Who’s Got the Power?
Progressives find themselves outmaneuvered on healthcare reform. - Not Your Parents’ Labor Movement
Why the Republic sit-in failed to inspire other worker actions. - Solidarity Reunited?
Unions rally around shrunken UNITE HERE as it takes on its former ally.
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
