Socialist Action /December 2001
No Surprises at AFL-CIO Convention
By CHARLES WALKER
Read the scores of resolutions and speeches that emanated from the AFL-CIO's
24th Biennial Convention held in Las Vegas during Dec. 2-6, and tell us
if you find any mention of the principal strategic outlook that drives 21st
century bureaucratic trade unionism in the U.S.
As anyone knows who follows contract negotiations, pays attention to
the comings and goings of union officials high and low, and painfully reads
their speeches, the chief strategic principle of the union officialdom is
to do whatever it takes to keep the bosses in business.
Truth to tell, there are few union officials left who say, "If the
bastards won't pay a decent wage, then let them fail!"
If we didn't know better we might expect that at least one of the main
sessions of the convention might discuss the alleged benefits workers have
gained from decades of labor-management committees, quality-of-work-life-circles,
profit-sharing plans, labor officials sitting on corporate boards-and no-strike
clauses in virtually every three, four, five and seven-year contract.
But no, the subject didn't come up in the formal discussions or in one
of the numerous resolutions. The delegates did discuss important issues,
such as immigrant rights, but didn't spend one moment drawing up a balance
sheet on the worth of its "innovative," though sticky relations
with the boss class.
As a result of those relations even "pay raises" are not what
they may seem to be. U.S. workers' share of the wealth they produce, as
measured by the Fed's Gross National Product statistics, clearly show that
the bosses and taxes are getting hundreds of billions of dollars each year
that once would have gone to workers.
One hoped in vain for a voice from the convention floor to shout that
the union officialdom can't and won't build a movement that inspires passionate
rank-and-file dedication as long as it ultimately remains in bondage to
the demands of profiteers and fails to win real victories.
That is, victories that are actually setbacks for the bosses. That is,
victories that can only be won by the united strength of the U.S. working
class.
President John J. Sweeney rightly complains that bosses are using the
Sept. 11 tragedies as a cover to wage war on American workers.
Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka says many bosses under the cover of
the attacks are "wringing concessions that they really don't need.
When there's a legitimate problem, unions will respond. When there isn't,
we'll resist."
But Trumka's own union, the mineworkers, is so weakened by concessions
that it's a basket case, down to two national officers!
Still, Sweeney's and Trumka's calculated righteous anger brings to mind
the short-lived outrage of then-UAW president, Doug Fraser, when in 1978
he resigned from the Labor-Management Group, a collection of bosses and
labor tops who sought, it was said, to tweak and shape the course of the
postwar's so-called labor relations, the infamous "social contract."
"I believe," Fraser said, "leaders of the business, with
few exceptions, have chosen to wage a one-sided class war in this country-a
war against working people, the unemployed, the poor, the minorities, the
very young and the very old and even many in the middle class of our society.
"The leaders of industry, commerce and finance in the United States
have broken and discarded the fragile, unwritten compact previously existing
during a period of growth and progress."
Just months later, his outrage seemingly under control, Fraser joined
the AFL-CIO head, Lane Kirkland, and backed President Carter's National
Accord, a pact to restrain workers' wages and boost productivity.
If history is a guide here, Sweeney and Trumka, like Fraser and Kirkland,
will accommodate themselves to the one-sided class combat that the bosses
wage-war or no war.
Socialist Action /December 2001 |