|
The
United Steel Workers (USW) organized an 11-state, 32-city bus tour May
11-14 under the name, "Keep it Made in America." The bus tour was
aimed at saving the over 7 million jobs tied to the auto industry from
assembly, auto parts, steel, rubber, dealers, services, transport, and
other related industries.
The
tour was co-sponsored by the Alliance for American Manufacturing,
which is composed of the USW, the United States Steel Corporation, and
Allegheny Technologies.
A
press release stated that organizers were inspired by "President Obama’s comments at his April 30 press conference
on his first 100 days as saying: ‘If you are considering buying a car,
I hope it will be an American car.’ The ‘Keep it Made in America’ tour supports the
president’s call that recognizes the millions of jobs tied to the fate
of the U.S. auto industry."
This
tour is just one in a series of recent "Buy American"
campaigns organized by unions in response to the 1.5 million job losses
in manufacturing during the economic crisis. The recent federal
stimulus package includes "Buy American" provisions for
materials used in funded projects.
Does
"Buy American" mean "Buy Union," as many of the
labor tops say? It should be obvious at the outset that the two slogans
are quite contradictory, particularly in a country where a mere 7
percent of the private sector is unionized.
Should
an American worker buy a non-union Japanese-owned Toyota made in Mississippi, or a U.S.-owned General
Motors product made by unorganized workers in Mexico, or a Volkswagen made in Germany by unionized workers? The
question itself is flawed.
The
nationalism of the "Buy American" campaign distorts who
American workers’ friends and foes are. The USW, for example, is part
of the Alliance for American Manufacturing,
along with two large corporations—U.S. Steel and Allegheny
Technologies. This organization in April organized 2000 laid-off steel
workers from the shuttered U.S. Steel plant in Granite City, Ill., to "Rally to Restore
American Manufacturing." The workers were protesting the use of
pipe made in India for a massive oil pipeline
from Alberta to Illinois.
Yet,
as an article in the April issue of Labor Notes pointed out, these same
so-called patriotic companies own facilities that "produce metals
in England, Canada, China, Mexico, Slovakia, Serbia, and Brazil." The USW is
protesting the use of foreign-made metals alongside the bosses who are
importing that very same metal!
And
considering that this is a pipeline extending through both the United States and Canada, what position are Canadian
steel workers expected to have in the scheme? (We must note the irony
that the most vocal union for protectionism is the USW, whose
president, Leo Gerard, is Canadian.) And what if the workers in India who make that metal lose
their jobs? Should we not be concerned with their fate? The destructive
course of protectionism on class solidarity is immense.
When
steel tariffs were raised in 2002 on the insistence of steel bosses and
the USW, steel workers and steel bosses in other countries protested.
Charles Walker, in the April 2002 issue of Socialist Action, noted,
"On March 15, The New York Times reported that Brazilian
steelworkers were protesting at the U.S. consulate in Sao Paulo, the
commercial and industrial center of Brazil, while calling on Brazilian
legislators to impose tariffs on U.S. goods. Brazilian union officials
say that up to 5000 steelworkers will be negatively affected by a
recent U.S. regulation that imposes tariffs of up to 30 percent on some
types of imported steel. An earlier Times report quoted British
unionists as saying that the new U.S. steel tariffs could cost
them 5000 jobs."
The
"Buy American" campaign puts workers in alliance with the
same powers that are responsible for job losses, while pitting them
against their natural allies. So why do the labor leaders promote such
an ineffective and destructive policy? The answer is that the
labor bureaucrats have sought to fan the flames of protectionism and
nationalism to hide the fact that they are unwilling to fight against
the real causes of mass layoffs.
The
most relevant example is the UAW leadership’s roll-over approach to
concessionary bargaining at the big three domestic automakers. In the
May edition of Socialist Action, Marty Goodman noted, "Five years
ago the UAW claimed to have 305,000 members at GM, Chrysler, and Ford;
now it’s down to 139,000. At the end of 1991, GM had 304,000 hourly
workers in the U.S.; by the end the end of
2010, it would have 40,000."
The
UAW, through various buyout agreements, the elimination of the job
banks, and acceptance of plant closures has allowed the big three to
eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs. Instead of leading workers to
fight against the mass layoffs, two-tiered wage systems, and all the
other concessions, the labor bureaucrats have blamed imports for the
decline of the auto industry.
This
is despite the fact that most of the foreign car brands sold in the United States are
manufactured in the U.S., in non-union plants.
The inability of the UAW to organize the transplants has much more to
do with the decline of the U.S. auto industry then imports.
The
only solution to save jobs for workers requires a militant fightback against a system that constantly erodes
workers’ wages, benefits, and working conditions—in the United States
and abroad.
Such
a fight back could call for the reductions of the workweek without loss
of pay. Companies have increasingly reduced workforces down to the bare
minimum to continue production by speeding up the pace of work and
forcing workers to work overtime. If the workweek were reduced to 30
hours without loss of pay, laid-off workers could be recalled.
A
mass public-works program to build mass transit, schools, and other
basic infrastructure would create work for industrial and construction
workers alike. Organizing the organized workers in entire industries,
thereby raising the living standards of all would negate the
"competitive advantage" of non-union companies such as the
transplant auto factories.
Fighting
for the improvement of workers’ wages and conditions throughout the
world is a necessity. The U.S. labor movement, for its own survival
alone, must do its utmost to aid the unionization and militant fightback efforts of workers in Mexico and
overseas. A return to the principal of “an injury to one is an injury
to all,” regardless of race or nationality, is not some nice sounding
slogan; it is the only way workers can protect their jobs.
All
of these solutions have one thing in common: they require a break from
the partnership approach of the labor tops. Workers can only improve
their situation by uniting as a class, across industries and borders.
"Buy American," on the other hand, only serves to foster
divisions among workers and to divert them from the true enemy—the boss
class and their system of private profit.
|