Labor and the war

The AFL-CIO passed a resolution on July 26 that calls for a rapid end to the Iraq war. The resolution, put forward by the General Executive Council, is being called a “major change of course” for the labor federation by U.S. Labor Against the War.

And to some old-timers in the labor movement, this looks like a big change. The AFL-CIO’s failure to oppose the Vietnam War nearly tore the federation apart and was part of the reason the United Auto Workers left it in 1968. Union members could be found at all the protests against the Vietnam War, but they were there without the official support of the big union federation.

This time it is indeed very different. When the AFL-CIO convention opened in Chicago it found itself flooded with 18 different anti-war resolutions from state federations, central labor councils and local unions. That reflects the serious shift by union members from passive opposition to the war to a more active call for bringing the troops home immediately. Everyone knows that a majority of the union membership—indeed, of the whole population—is against the war on Iraq.

When the AFL-CIO gathered to meet in Chicago, President John Sweeney and the General Executive Council took one look at all the anti-war resolutions and stepped back. Some of the resolutions were based on the excellent statement endorsed by the San Francisco Central Labor Council, which had given full endor se ment to earlier anti-war demonstrations. Most of them were similar to the Wis consin AFL-CIO’s resolution, which was passed by many other state conventions. All these resolutions had the endorsement of large numbers of union members.

Instead, the General Executive Council introduced at the last minute its own, much more watered-down resolution, one that did not mention the terrible toll the U.S. occupation is taking on the people of Iraq, did not mention the torture chambers in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, did not mention the theft of Iraq’s resources by the invaders’ big business partners.

This resolution was maneuvered into the convention’s agenda as a replacement for the 18 resolutions brought by the member unions. It was only the quick intervention of Fred Mason, president of the Maryland/District of Columbia AFL-CIO and co-convener of U.S. Labor Against the War, who proposed an amendment to the resolution, that brought some of its wording more into line with what all the anti-war resolutions sent to the convention said and what the majority of union members had expected would be passed.

As for the Change to Win Coalition, set up by the Teamsters, SEIU and several other unions, some of which disaffiliated from the AFL-CIO while the convention was going on, they have yet to say one word on the war.

What may matter more than the exact words of the resolution, however, is how it is seen and understood by union members and their supporters.

It is already clear from news reports and conversations with members of the AFL-CIO unions that many see this resolution as an endorsement of a firm anti-war position.

Every union member should take this resolution and run with it, using it as an endorsement of the kind of militant action that is necessary to really bring the troops home. This includes getting involved with counter-recruitment efforts at local schools and getting members of your local to go to Washington on Sept. 24 and join the massive anti-war rally to be held outside the White House.

That’s in keeping with the spirit of the majority of the anti-war resolutions put forward at the AFL-CIO convention.