Defend ILWU Local 10 rally. Fighting back against the "Concession Caucus"

I have been wracking my brain trying to figure out how to approach this for the last few days. But I want to comment on the video above and and our methods of struggle in the Labor movement and workplace, regular rank and file workers or seasoned leftists, and in particular our relationship to the bureaucracy that is at the helm of our trade Union movement. I am directing my remarks primarily at the rank and file workers that read this blog on a regular basis, not necessarily "professional" leftists.

The speaker on the video above is Tim Paulson, the head of the San Francisco Labor Council. He is speaking at a rally in support of ILWU Local 10 in San Francisco. Local 10 shut down the West Coast docks on April 4th in support of the workers of Wisconsin and the call from the AFL-CIO for rallies and actions that day. This was not done in agreement with the employers and they have sued Local 10 as workers refused to handle cargo. It was a courageous gesture of solidarity from the rank and file of Local 10.

The rally was organized by The Committee to Defend Local 10 and there were about 100 people present. Almost all of us in attendance were in one left organization or another, or have been in one; what we often call, the "usual suspects". In other words, the "rank and file" that we all agree are the key to reversing the direction we are heading in is absent. The fact that it was in the middle of a working day does not explain this. I have been at many such gatherings and it is the norm. Given that the objective situation in US society is more favorable that it has been in a long time, how do we explain this?

In order to draw the rank and file of the Unions and the working class in general in to struggle we have to have a program that attracts them. We have to fight for them. Simply calling for the overthrow of capitalism doesn't do it; while many workers might agree with it, it doesn't help them pay the rent.

The struggle to build a movement to defend the ILWU against threats from the employers is to build a wider movement. None of us attending the rally would disagree with that and many speakers stated that this was not about the ILWU but about the attacks on all workers. The defense committee should fight for concrete demands. This is not intended to be a program manifesto but if we are serious about turning the tide, every strike, every community struggle, every battle against racism and discrimination, must be a battle against the bosses as a whole. We are all under attack. Millions of workers not in a Union would want to join an organization that fought for them against slumlords and for affordable housing, for health care. Any organization that campaigned for a $15 or $20 an hour minimum wage would attract millions of low waged workers. The crisis is so acute and the anger so widespread in society even Republicans like John Boehner are talking about cutting subsidies to the energy industry. Campaigning to end the predatory wars abroad and for a massive increase in social spending for education and social services and to create jobs would be immensely popular. No increased taxes on workers or the middle class and demanding we make the rich pay would appeal to every worker.

Such a committee could take this to workplaces, corporation yards distribute its literature on subway trains, buses, building sites, the welfare offices and unemployment offices as some of us did during negotiations with my employers in the nineties. Meetings can be held in areas that workers could come to discuss how we could win such things and how we can build opposition movements in our Unions based on a fighting program that challenges the bosses offensive and more importantly and more difficult than fighting the boss, openly confronts the present Union leadership and their collaborative policies. We have to be seen as having an alternative program and an alternative strategy for winning than the "Concession Caucus" * if we are to be taken seriously by those workers who would enter the fray if they could see a realistic alternative out there.

There are different methods of doing things. A resolution in support of the defense of Local 10 was introduced and passed at the San Francisco Labor Council. Like all higher bodies of this nature, it is the "Concession Caucus" that is in control of them so I assume the resolution was not opposed by the speaker above who is part of the "Concession Caucus" and on the executive board of the California Democratic Party among other things. In 2009, members of SEIU local 1021, the Union representing city workers in San Francisco, voted to reject a contract that contained $38 million in concessions in order to help the city during these hard economic times. This is a first step for many workers and is a sign of some willingness to push back that one would think those that claim to support a fightback and often blame the ranks for not doing so, would jump on. But no, "SEIU's leadership" wrote the Chronicle at the time, “Plan to take another package of concessions to their members for a vote next week.” In other words, the old "wear them down" tactic; take it back enough times and they'll accept it. The leadership’s explanation for the no vote? Their members may have been “confused” when they rejected the concessions.

The above Tim Paulson assured the bosses in the media that he was “hopeful that if it’s approved, the mayor will rescind the layoffs.” He voiced no condemnation of the SEIU leadership's capitulation or offered an alternative to it that I know of. Oh, vote for Jerry Brown maybe. He also said of the 1021 vote “Ultimately, the rank and file will make the right decision to save as many services as we can during these difficult times.” Carefully chosen words, the only option on the table from the leadership of the Local and the Labor Council was layoffs or concessions on wages and benefits; damage control.

A similar thing happened in February 2010 when MUNI operators rejected a contract despite their leadership recommending it as in the case of SEIU 1021. The Chronicle reported that  the Union leadership will try to “salvage” the deal; in other words, wear the members down and accede to the employers demands. This stand by the MUNI operators came at an opportune time as the student movement was gaining momentum for a one-day strike on March 4th to defend education, jobs and service cuts, something the Concession Caucus choked the life out of where it could.

This is the program of the Concession Caucus that brother Paulson is advocating; damage control. Cut my members pay, benefits and anything else to save money and save a few jobs and get the Democrats in office. Not only has this not worked for Union workers; it hasn't worked for the rest of us. It says to the 88% of US workers that are unorganized? We have nothing for you.

So why would Tim Paulson and the Concession Caucus in the Labor Council support the resolution to defend Local10? Here are the resolves from the resolution:

Therefore be it resolved, that the San Francisco Labor Council, consistent with its March 14th resolution, initiate a broad defense campaign of ILWU Local 10 by setting up a defense committee in collaboration with Local 10, by contacting and mobilizing the Labor Councils and AFL-CIO of the Bay Area, California and nationally; and

Be it further resolved, that the first step in this campaign will be to call for a mass mobilization of all Bay Area Labor Councils and the California AFL-CIO to rally in front of PMA headquarters in San Francisco on Monday April 25th to demand that the court suit be dropped and that the vindictive lynch mob procedures against the union in the arbitration be halted immediately; and

Be it finally resolved that ILWU Local 10 be commended for its solidarity action and that we request that the state and national AFL-CIO do likewise.

There is nothing that one could oppose in this resolution. But words can be used to mean something and they can be used as a cover for doing nothing. Leaving aside that the leadership of a body with 80,000 workers can only turn out a "mass mobilization" of 100 and most of them socialists belonging to the committee, the resolution just has no guts to it. This is no accident. The reason it is written in this way is so the Concession Caucus and Tim Paulson will not oppose it. But I am more and more convinced that we would be better off without such support because it comes with a price. The Concession Caucus and its representative like brother Paulson don't care if 100 leftists get together and call them bureaucrats and accuse them of not fighting and being in bed with Democrats etc. Their members aren't there to hear it. Their members aren't there to hear an alternative program and strategy for the Labor movement. Call us names till you're red in the face, but stay the hell away from my members and don't oppose us in the hall, in the movement. Do not campaign against our ideas openly within the ranks of organized Labor.

I was an elected delegate to a Labor Council for a number of years and I always introduced resolutions from my local. In other words, they were discussed and passed by them first. Here is my alternative to resolutions worked out with the help of the Concession Caucus. Introduce a similar resolution about the need to defend Local 10, that this is an attack on all workers and that defending the ILWU and building a wider movement to drive back the attacks are linked; do it from the Labor Council floor if you are unable to do so at your local meeting. Include some basic demands like those above (I am not intending to make this a debate on program) and a detail or two about where the money is. The resolution would call on the Labor council to urge delegates to go in to their locals and to their shop stewards and co-workers workplaces and mobilize around such a program and aggressive strategy for winning it. It should call on the Labor Council to call meetings in conjunction with community groups about the need to save services, create jobs, fight for health care, education housing and the end to the imprisonment of our youth, etc.

They Won't Pass such a resolution
Of course they won't.You move it, force a vote. They will often try to dispose it through some sort of bureaucratic organizational maneuver as their arguments that concessions work are weak. But by forcing a vote, they cannot get away with ignoring the issue as happens now or by speaking at a gathering like the above and pretending they are fighting for their members. We lose the vote, maybe 6, 8, 10, delegates are on the losing side. We now have a minority caucus in the Labor Council around a program and strategy that is a clear alternative to the "Concession Caucus", one that at least challenges the bosses offensive.  This resolution is what is now an open opposing caucus in the Labor Council takes in to the workplaces with the wider support of a solidarity committee . We go to the bus depots, corporation yards building sites, our local Unions, in to the guts of our movement.We explain that there is a struggle an open struggle over policy in the Unions and here are the differences. Yes we are a minority, will you join us; get involved?

Were there a serious left current in the Labor movement sparks would have been flying in bodies like the Central Labor Councils long ago. Open campaigns would be waged within Union bodies and on the job against the cuts and the leadership’s support of them. This would galvanize rank and file workers and show them that a real fighting alternative exists; it would draw them to us. Naturally, as resources grew we would reach further in to the communities and the ranks of the low waged and unorganized and link with the student movement. We would discuss ideas and alternatives and the system itself as such a  movement gains life.

The price we pay for the endorsement of the Concession Caucus, is that we cannot openly present an alternative for the Unions in a clear way because we have their empty endorsement and don't want to lose it. We are not seen as significantly different from them and workers will see that and lump us in the same bag. And we give representatives of this caucus a podium where they can pretend they will actually do something that takes us forward. As Paulson says in the video, we have a committee. This is a trick, he is not stupid. His caucus has the resources to do what we are not yet capable of and he knows it. What mobilizing did the council do to get the rank and file there? None, that's why he points to the committee, it gets them off the hook. And as we have totally different views to this brother and his caucus, why would we need his endorsement? If we run against them in the Union election would we expect our opponent to endorse us? "Vote for me, my opponent supports me."As a delegate in the minority you won't get a job with a Union or get sent to a conference here and there and be allowed to say "I represent the Labor Council" . But the best workers will support you and we might just build a movement that way that can take the leadership of a Union, District Council or Labor Council. And I have learned from experience that if you have a base and you fight in a political and not a personal way, the Concession Caucus or any leadership will have to deal with you.

Lastly with regard to the demand for a general strike that is very prominent at left gatherings, I would ask us to consider this. I was at the boring rally in San Francisco in support of Wisconsin that the SFLC called apparently. I was so bored I went and joined the Libyans, much better. There must have been two thousand public workers at the Union rally, not the usual suspects. I watched an AFSCME official as she forcefully and more than once reminded the crowd that "this is not about money"; this is the line from above as they support concessions. "Why not", I shouted. Of course its about money. It's about jobs and benefits and vacation and health care and housing. But it is a reflection of the consciousness among a whole section of Unionized workers that she could say this without being booed from the podium. These workers have taken huge wage cuts, are threatened with losing pensions and their jobs. How is it possible she can say this without getting rotten eggs thrown at her?

This is how far back the consciousness of so many Union workers has been driven. The position of brother Paulson and Richard Trumka's "Concession Caucus" that we can't win has had an effect and strike after strike has been defeated under their leadership to back that up. Most conscious workers are aware that going on the offensive against the boss means coming up against the likes of brother Paulson and the "Concession Caucus" that will defend its position by suppressing any movement from below that challenges it as they did in the two examples above. This a formidable combination; confidence and experience is low.

Most workers would not know what a general strike is, or what a Labor Council is. Most workers would not know how to fight back against the Concession Caucus. So an important task for us is that we help rank and file workers build opposition caucuses with a fighting program and tactics and help them learn anew political struggle. We have to show that victories are possible, even small ones. A victory is a great motivator, that's why the Concession Caucus fears them.

I believe that this is how we can begin to reverse the disastrous course that the Concession Caucus has chartered and transform our Unions and along with that, the entire mood in this country.

* Concession Caucus is a term that some brothers and sisters in the UAW use to describe the leadership of that Union. It is an accurate term and I am using it here with regard to the entire leadership atop organized Labor. I also stress that the basis of their concessionary policies is that they have no alternative to capitalism and worship the market. Consequently, mobilizing their own members and the working class as a whole can only lead to chaos.