Skip to main content

There's a debate raging over the OWS port shutdowns, and the role of unions in the shutdowns. Some believe workers have been betrayed; others claim that unions simply cannot signal their support.

Suggesting that a union does, or does not support an action like shutting down the ports (on the basis of what we've seen so far) is a gross oversimplification. In the first place, the no-strike clause has legal implications, with the result that statements of position may exist primarily to satisfy legal obligations.

Second, as we have apparently seen with ILWU 10, there may be significant differences in position and perception between local leadership and national/international leadership.

Third, all of those stating in comments on other KOS articles that they've drawn conclusions based upon what has been published ought to hold their breath; we've never before seen a global movement like OWS interact with a mainstream labor movement before. It is very likely, in spite of pronouncements, that many union leaders at the local AND the national level hadn't yet formed opinions on a one day demonstration port shutdown; many will have awaited the opportunity to assess the effectiveness of, and the public's reactions to, the day's actions.

The history of the labor movement, characteristics of the labor bureaucracy, and the success of the effort (operationally, and perceptually) will play a role in what is about to unfold.

More after the jump.

There has long been tension between the goals and tactics of union locals, frequently as expressed in central labor councils, and leadership of AFL/AFL-CIO affiliates.

The AFL came out very strongly against actions with significant local labor support in 1919. Several central labor councils called or contemplated general strikes that year, after which the national conventions prohibited central labor councils from calling such strikes. There were two significant general strikes that year -- in Seattle, and in Winnipeg -- and many others were about to spring up. But the power in the AFL (and now in the AFL-CIO) is in the individual affiliates, and some affiliates fear losing their dues base as a result of employers voiding their labor contracts during a general strike.

The dues base is the source of power for business unions. Thus, they are sometimes willing to look the other way when companies occasionally violate labor contracts, but fear to violate contracts themselves. And nearly every business union contract has a "no strike" clause. Thus, since contracts expire at all different times of the year, general strikes have rarely happened in the United States.

It is possible that this could change -- i'll explain why below.

Union Locals and Central Labor Councils tend to be close to the rank and file. The national leadership of each union, regrettably, is not. Local labor leaders are elected. In most unions, national leadership is not elected, they're selected by a bureaucracy of delegates. Thus, it is not unusual for the interests of local rank and file members, and of national leaders, to be at odds.

What do national labor leaders want out of OWS? I surmise they want a club that they can wield against those who oppose unions. The threat of general strikes could act as such a club, especially when things haven't been going well for labor's legislative agenda. Yet OWS presents two conflicting sets of circumstances -- an extended, militant base of support, but no easy means of control over that base.

National leaders likely see the benefit of plausible deniability of not really controlling OWS when they're hob-nobbing with politicians and corporate powers. While direct control is possible over the rank and file of affiliated unions who interact with OWS, national leaders are likely to allow a slack leash, just long enough to see what comes of the OWS mobilizations.

If the AFL-CIO national affiliates (the ILWU in particular) had really not wanted OWS to attempt closing the ports, they would have sent that message in no uncertain terms. OWS would have received such a message, and understood it implicitly. Obviously, union leaders did not see any significant downside to a one day port shutdown. Why not let it ride and see where it goes?

And what of the published claim that west coast port shutdowns would hurt workers? THAT gives plausible deniability with the rank and file. If the shutdown somehow goes badly, national leaders can say, "see? We told you so!"

Thus, a perceived conflict between the ILWU national leadership, and (for example) ILWU Local 10 may be real, or it may be simply our perception. I wouldn't read too much into it.

Who's got the power in the event of differing opinions? National affiliate leadership has the ultimate say in most everything, if they choose to exercise it. But expect them to stay coy, at least for a while. They see (as all of us do) that OWS has changed the national conversation in a way that organized labor was unable to. And that is huge.

Here's why we may see appreciable change in the mainstream labor movement: in 1950, one out of three workers in the United States was union. The number in the private sector is currently about one in twelve. Mainstream labor has seen a long, steady decline. In spite of a major split in the federation that some hoped would bring new energy, there has been no immediate prospect of reversal. But while many mainstream unions are declining, the comparatively tiny Industrial Workers of the World -- the colorful, and in some circles controversial union of militant and radical rabble-rousers who call themselves Wobblies -- is gaining support and membership at a rate unprecedented since 1924.

OWS is a Wobbly sort of endeavor, with numerous characteristics ("general assemblies", horizontal democracy, emphasis on direct action, libraries for the rank and file, and adopted creative tactics -- from clogging the court system, to the silent shaming tactic at UC Davis) either explicitly borrowed from the IWW, or re-discovered organically. The IWW is the only union in the U.S. that has supported the general strike as a vital weapon against capital since its inception in 1905. AND, the one person most credited with launching OWS in Zuccotti Park (Anthropologist David Graeber) is not just an anarchist, he is also a Wobbly.

Militant rank and file of the mainstream unions and the IWW have found their place in the middle of the OWS movement. OWS fits their philosophical aspirations rather well.

So where does it go from here? Will the AFL-CIO ultimately support some form of a general strike? Labor law criminalizes most types of secondary strikes (and a general strike is the mother of all secondary strikes). So it is more than a question of tactics. Labor organizations contemplating overt support or involvement would be stepping well outside of their comfort zones.

It has happened before. The 1919 general strikes were a direct result of worker dissatisfaction after World War I. Returning soldiers, as well as the collapse of wartime labor incentives played a role. The last significant general strike in the United States occurred in 1946, immediately after World War II. Currently, two significant (and perhaps, in some ways, comparable) wars appear to be winding down. And everyone knows that veterans have been flocking to OWS.

The AFL-CIO will continue to be somewhat uneasy about working with OWS, as it has always been about working in any capacity with the IWW. But what the AFL-CIO has been doing for the past half century hasn't been working very well in the face of union busting and political hostility. Some AFL-CIO leaders must be at least thinking about alternative strategies.

So who might possibly step outside of the normal comfort zone (damning the consequences) if circumstances continue to deteriorate for workers? Local union organizations -- probably -- in some cases. This is because some local memberships are radical, and increasingly so. National affiliate leadership, not so likely -- but they won't tip their hand until it suits them. Even with a few leaders open to new ideas, it seems likely that the stodgy old AFL-CIO will revert to form, opposing radical innovations and preventing any sort of metamorphosis.

Thus, circumstances fertile for rebellion might conceivably exist not only against the economic system, but against national labor leadership as well.

In conclusion, i contend that the union roots of OWS are much broader and deeper than most observers realize. There is no reason in the world to turn against OWS on the false basis that OWS doesn't respect workers' rights. OWS is all about workers' rights.

The really big question is: how far will national leaders of business unions go for the workers?


The author, active in OWS since the first day, has been an officer, steward, organizer, salt, safety rep, executive delegate, and a union member for 40 years, in three different unions. The opinions expressed here are based upon experience, and not upon any sort of inside knowledge of current events.

Originally posted to Richard Myers on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 10:14 PM PST.

Also republished by In Support of Labor and Unions, ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement, and Team DFH.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I am Proud to be in the Working Class! (3+ / 0-)

    And while you write about the IWW and the AFL-CIO, you left out the United Electrical Workers, an Independent (non AFL-CIO) Rank and File (vote on everything) Union.

    And Militant? Remember the 2009 Occupation of that factory in Chicago? We (UE) called it a sit down strike, at the Republic Door and Window factory. And the bastards responsible? The Bank of America. The chant we used at BoA offices across the country in picketlines? "You got Bailed Out, We got Sold Out!" I think I might have heard that recently on the news somewhere. Or maybe in an Occupy protest I have gone to in the last couple months at DC, or Pittsburgh, or Erie, PA.

    And I am pretty sure that you know of us. I know the Wobblies respect us. And the AFL-CIO wishes they had our testicular fortitude.

    MY National Officers aren't running a Business Union, they are running a Labor Union. The big clue there is the wages the top officers get. My President makes no more than the people he represents, PER OUR CONSTITUTION. Business Unions pay the top officers like top management. I actually make more than them because I get a night shift bonus that takes me up above them.

    Just your average every day Autistic hillbilly/biker/activist/union steward with an engineering degree.

    by Mentatmark on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:12:20 PM PST

  •  If I could give this a "5", I would. Rec'd, (5+ / 0-)

    Tip'd, Tweet'd and Appreciat'd.

    The surest way to predict the future is to invent it. — Stephen Post. [Me at Twitter.]

    by Meteor Blades on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:26:44 PM PST

  •  Somehow, I am not suprised to hear of (3+ / 0-)

    links between OWS and the IWW. The whole Occupy Movement has similarities with the IWW of old. Back when it was a young organization that quickly spread across the country. For further study of the IWW:

    The Industrial Workers of the World 1905-1917
    Hx of Labor Movement in US, Vol 4 by Philip S Foner

    Rebel Voices: An IWW Anthology ed by Joyce L Kornbluh

    Solidarity Forever: An Oral Hx of the IWW

    The Rebel Girl: My First Life (1906-1926) by Elizabeth Gurley Flynn

    The Autobiography of Big Bill Haywood

    Also the OWS posters that some complained looked too commie, reminded me, instead of IWW posters! I would caution OWS, however, not to romanticize the IWW as an anarchist group. The IWW was a fighting union, organized to carry on long term strikes, and engaged in life or death struggles across the country. The IWW did have strong central leadership in Chicago HQ, even as it practiced local democracy.

    Big Bill Haywood, speaking at Socialist Party Convention, describes local strike leadership of the 1912 Lawrence Textile Strike:

    And the most significant part of that strike was that it was a democracy. The strikers handled their own affairs. There was no president of the organization who looked in and said, "Howdydo." There were no members of an executive board. There was no one the boss could see except the strikers. The strikers had a committee of 56, representing 27 different languages...An immediately behind that committee was a substitute committee of another 56 prepared in the event of the original committee's being arrested.  

    Lawrence, MA

    John Ramy
    Anna La Piza

    If there's a reason for the rich to rule, please Lord, tell us why. -Battle of Jericol, Coal Mining Woman

    by JayRaye on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 03:01:18 AM PST

  •  Great post n/t (1+ / 0-)

    Occupy is not fighting for the rights of a few to sleep outdoors, but for the right of millions to sleep indoors. (VanJones - I think from a tweet).

    by Actbriniel on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:39:34 AM PST

  •  Protesting is fine.... (0+ / 0-)

    blocking work is not.   I understand the intent and message, but THAT is playing into their hands.  It gives the powers-that-be something real to counter - and counter they will.

    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." -- Hubert H. Humphrey

    by Candide08 on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:35:33 AM PST

    •  Here's the question: (2+ / 0-)

      Consider this: we have never before, in the history of the world, seen a sustained global movement like Occupy. This is new territory.

      What if working people, fearful of losing one day of pay, could over a period of time gain much more than one day of pay out of a revived labor movement? What if we're talking about issues such as improved wages, hours, and working conditions, but also about gaining respect?

      Would that change the perspective of individuals worried about sacrifice?

      There is no sure thing, obviously. But there never is a sure thing when you're talking about struggle. The one thing we can count on, is that it may be better to fight from a position of strength, than from a position of weakness.

      For reference -- especially on the importance of that question of respect -- i strongly recommend that everyone read this:


      Thanks for the comment. -richard myers

  •  Posting a comment for someone else (0+ / 0-)

    A fellow union member (IWW) posted this on Facebook, and i wanted to share his comment here, so i am providing this with his permission:

    begin copy/paste

    From what I have seen in my region, certain elements of the authoritarian left have ginned up support for these port actions with little consultation with the unions on the waterfront. Without going ballistic, I will advise skepticism of those who would be vanguards, especially if they don't seem to understand how their decisions impact rank-and-file workers, or have an appreciation for what solidarity actions entail. A wedge can be driven between the labor movement and OWS nationwide. The last time this happened was during the Viet Nam war, where working class parents of draftee soldiers perceived a lack of support for their kids getting shot at, from the largely white, middle class peace movement. Lessons have been learned, but be wary of provocateurs.

    I say these things because I went to Longview last July, and even though our brothers and sisters in ILWU 21 can be progressive and supportive of OWS-type actions, they like to call their own shots, and don't like non-labor people trying to direct industrial actions. Among the issues that many OWS activists do not understand, are Federal labor law (Title VII), little items like the Taft Hartley Act, and the fact that many workers are social conservatives, and need more solidarity than political education by certain authoritarian left elements.On the video clip of the action in Seattle, I saw some activists kick cars coming into the port, and those cars are not driven by oligarchs. The whole thing can be rectified by calling the union locals who represent, or the CLC for the area, and asking what can be done to support. A Wobbly with a thermos hot coffee, ready to carry ILWU signage, and observing the jurisdiction of the union will be welcomed heartily: dilettantes who make demands of port workers are ill-advised at best, and can ruin industrial actions at worst, causing police retaliation against the people they are supposedly supporting. My two cents as an individual, and not speaking for my Branch.

    My point is that vanguards can bring heat down on rank-and-file workers. Some know this, and consider it part of their strategy, but many others simply don't realize that they are not hurting the capitalists as much as they are alienating the working class.

    end copy/paste

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site