The anti-Israel boycott is "illegal" in France

Below is my rough translation of the recent article in the French left-wing paper Libération on the decision by France's Court of Cassation to uphold conviction against activists involved in the French Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against the Israeli occupation Palestine.

The anti-Israel boycott is "illegal" in France
Alexandre Hervaud
Originally published in Libération
October 28, 2015

The Supreme Court last week upheld the conviction of a dozen activists from the BDS campaign. There are voices in protest against "an attack on freedom of expression."

The anti-Israel boycott is "illegal" in France
Last week, the Court of Cassation, the highest court in the French judiciary, upheld the conviction of twelve activists from Mulhouse (Haut-Rhin) who participated in 2009 and 2010 in actions calling for a boycott of Israeli products. The militants had twice invited customers of an Alsatian supermarket not to buy Israeli products under BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions).

As Libération recalled this summer, the initiative launched in 2004 intends to convince people not to use Israeli products and funding as Israel does not easily change its "colonial policy". The controversial campaign, fueled by the operation "Tel Aviv on the Seine", had subsequently led to an exchange in our pages by tribunes interposed between Laurent Joffrin [editor of Libération] and [Omar Barghouti] co-founder of the BDS movement.

The newspaper Alsace recalls that involved activists were acquitted by the high court of Mulhouse in December 2011 and sentenced by the Court of Appeal of Colmar end of 2013 for  "incitement to discrimination, national, racial and religious". With, the key, the payment of 32,000 euro fine, damages and legal costs. In a statement,the militants,  "stunned", wrote: "After the conviction, it would become impossible today to boycott South Africa to fight against apartheid? Yet in the years 70-80, the boycott of South Africa conducted against this racist state was a key factor that led to the abolition of apartheid, victory of human progress. "

Restriction of freedom of expression
"Let it be said once and for all: the boycott of Israeli products is illegal!" enthused the lawyer Pascal Markowicz, member of the steering committee of CRIF (Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France). For him, "the highest court of our judiciary [confirm] so that freedom of expression may be subject to restrictions or penalties which are necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder and the protection of rights of others ". This notion of freedom of expression with variable geometry has been criticised by American journalist Glenn Greenwald, to whom we owe the revelations about the massive surveillance NSA documents leaked via by Edward Snowden.

On his website The Intercept, Greenwald, who has denounced for months the "fraud" of the mobilisations on January 11 in France as not so Charlie, writes: "Where are all the new found free speech activists who insisted after the Charlie Hebdo murders that a defense of free expression was so vital to all that is good and just in the Western world? Why isn’t the #JeSuisBDS hashtag trending in defense of these activists who have been persecuted — prosecuted — by France for their political views? The answer is clear: Many who reveled in wrapping themselves in the “free speech” banner earlier this year — beginning with France itself and extending throughout the West — have no genuine belief in that right. That’s why these countries not only stand silent in the face of such a fundamental assault on free speech, but aggressively perpetrate those abuses."


Echoing the rostrum massively relayed Greenwald, the American NGO Freedom House has released its annual report on the degree of digital freedom 65 countries (available here in PDF). Telerama reports that if France is still considered "free" in digital expression, it is however the Western country in which freedom has deteriorated the most in the last year. Globally, only Libya is worse. According to the report, "the situation in France has declined mainly due to problematic measures adopted in the wake of the attacks of Charlie Hebdo, just like the prohibition of content that can be described as advocating terrorism, prosecution of online and the significant increase in surveillance ".

Read more...

Solidarity, empathy and combating misogyny, the limits of the Australian Socialist Alliance's code of conduct

Lisbeth Latham

In the June 2014, the Socialist Alliance adopted a new code of conduct entitled Defending Comradely Solidarity in Socialist Alliance. This document had previously been published in the March issue of the Socialist Alliance's discussion bullet Alliance Voices. Published alongside it was a second article, by Susan Price, Socialist Alliance co-convenor, titled Thinking About Party Leadership and Functioning in the Socialist Alliance, which looked at how left/progressive organisations should address the influence of oppressive social behaviour within the working class.

Neither documents make clear motivations for their drafting, although Price's contribution does make reference to the destructive impact on the British Socialist Workers Party (SWP) of that organisation's handling of rape allegations against former SWP national secretary Martin Smith. The covering note to Defending Comradely Solidarity makes reference to the new code including “appended guidelines to assist leadership bodies dealing with reports of sexual assault by members”, which would suggest at the very least a perception that the organisation's existing Code of Conduct is inadequate for properly handling allegations of oppressive behaviour by members and specifically with the ability to handle allegations of rape. As a person who is keenly interested in problems of misogyny within the left and as a former Socialist Alliance member this is a critical reading of the documents, discussing both the merits and limitations of Alliance’s attempt to address issues of oppressive behaviour, particularly rape.

Why Challenge Oppressive Behaviour?
Both Thinking About Party Leadership and Defending Comradely Solidarity motivate the need to challenge oppressive behaviour primarily on the impact of such behaviour on the unity of the working class as a whole and on the internal “political solidarity and mutual confidence so essential to building a united team of activists and an effective political leadership”. Such explanations are common in many left organisations when focusing on the need to challenge oppressive behaviour. In a recent contribution to the US International Socialist Organisation's (ISO) internal discussion bulletin which examined the handling of rape allegations in that organisation, the need to challenge misogyny was posed on the need to “practice our fight on the needs of the oppressed” on the basis of “considering it fundamental that the overthrow of capitalism will require the confrontation of oppression by the oppressed themselves. We must therefore do everything we can so that victims of oppression can feel safe in the ISO and with ISO comrades, in order that they can fully participate in the struggle”. These instrumental arguments downplay the broader impact of this behaviour on individuals experiencing the behaviour – they do not motivate opposition on the basis of empathy, or even morality, but instead a calculation of the cost to the organisation of the behaviour. By doing so you risk making decisions to take action (with regard to oppressive behaviour) based on this calculation, a calculation which historically has seen the retention of members of dominant social groups, most notably cis straight white men, as more valuable than members of oppressed groupings.

What are discrimination, bullying and harassment?
Defending Comradely Solidarity seeks to define discrimination, bullying and harassment as behaviours that are viewed as inappropriate for members to display towards other members. This falls short in a number of ways: the focus on behaviour within the organisation is problematic, as often some of the worst behaviour by members of the left is reserved for individuals outside their own organisations; behaviour which is often given a pass due to the tendency of organisations to defend the action of their comrades from external criticism. It is important to note that Defending Comradely Solidarity includes a comment that violence by SA members, whether towards members or non-members, will not be tolerated; however, it is unclear how this functions in practice as the guidelines that are set out only apply to members raising complaints.

Discrimination – Whilst Defending Comradely Solidarity is correct in saying that discrimination can be defined as “treating a person or people less favourably than others, because they are a member of an oppressed group”, this tends to specifically be a feature of direct forms of discrimination. Such a definition does not countenance forms of indirect discrimination. Indirect forms of discrimination occur when policies and practices are adopted that, while not seeking to disadvantage someone on the basis of being in an oppressed group, the requirements of these policies or practices are likely to disproportionately affect an oppressed group. It is also important to recognise that you can act in a discriminatory way if you fail to take reasonable action to address an experience of disadvantage, i.e. you don't treat a person who experiences oppression in a preferable way.

It is the questions of both indirect discrimination and the need to seek to provide preferable treatment to oppressed groups that many left organisations struggle with. Price in her piece in saying that “sexism, racism, homophobia, ableism, ageism in the party are unacceptable!”, immediately says that, “at same time, we are a political not a welfare organisation – and there are limits to what we can do to right the wrongs of an unequal, racist, sexist, ageist, homophobic and ableist society”, which gives the organisation a pass on anything beyond direct discrimination by individual members, in which case “if a member’s actions bring the Alliance into disrepute or if a member engages in behaviour that is considered to be detrimental to the best interests of the Alliance. In such circumstances, a financial member can be asked to 'show cause' as to why their membership should not be suspended or cancelled”. This approach denies that the internal life of a left organisation could be actively discriminatory, a conclusion that it is not safe to draw given the problematic attitudes held by many left organisations historically. The approach also poses the question of discipline as being hinged on the behaviour being detrimental to the organisation – how do you judge that? – rather than on the basis that the behaviour is problematic.

Defending Comradely Solidarity defines bullying primarily in terms of direct interactions between people in meetings, ranging “from raising one’s voice and finger pointing to more extreme forms of physical and psychological intimidation. It can also include physical behaviour designed to undermine the confidence of a person when they are speaking". The problem with this definition is that it makes no differentiation between individual acts and repeated behaviour (which is generally key to most definitions of bullying); it also tends to focus on subjective interpretations of interactions within meetings and formal interactions while not problematising behaviour which is aimed at marginalising or undermining individuals outside of formal settings. The discussion also totally fails to deal with the question of power within the context in which the behaviour is occurring, whilst those with limited power can bully those with more power, this is generally only possible if it is based on a group of the less powerful ganging up on someone, or alternatively an individual with less power being supported by others with more power. Moreover, it fails to address how in many organisations bullying behaviour is seen as being a sign of being an effective organiser and is a standard aspect of internal discourse – such as dismissals of concerns or differences based on individuals being demoralised or unwell.

Defending Comradely Solidarity in defining harassment tends to again focus on direct verbal and physical harassment which, given the existence of both social media and the phenomena of stalking, seems an overly narrow focus. This approach also places significant emphasis on how the victim of any harassment perceives that harassment, which can put an individual member in the difficult position of having to raise concerns about the behaviour of another member against them – ignoring problems of power within the organisation or the standing of the individual within the organisation who is harassing them. It allows the organisation to step away from its duty of care and instead leaves it up to individuals experiencing the harassment to make this call – which can be difficult given the potential consequences of making a complaint. Defending Comradely Solidarity states that “persistent and/or serious sexual harassment by a member should trigger prompt consideration of their membership status in accordance with the constitution, whether or not the harassment would constitute an offence under criminal law”, however it does not clearly empower the branch to take this action off its own bat. It is also unclear how the terms “serious” and “persistent” are being used in the context, particularly persistent – is it in relation to harassment of a single individual, or does it extend to a pattern of harassing behaviour towards a range of individuals?

Duty to report
A positive aspect of Defending Comradely Solidarity is the paragraph under the section “What can I do?” which states “All members with knowledge of antisocial violence perpetrated by another Socialist Alliance member have a responsibility to report it to their branch leadership”. Although as I discuss below, how this duty relates to the rights of survivors to not participate with a process and have their privacy and confidentiality respected is not clear.

Guidelines for dealing with reports of sexual violence
The final section of Defending Comradely Solidarity provides the guidelines for the handling of allegations of sexual violence within the Socialist Alliance. There are a number of positive aspects to both the document as a whole and the guidelines, but there are also some weaknesses.

Positives
There are a number of positive aspects to these guidelines, these include:

• That they emphasise the right for an individual to seek redress within the organisation for violence against them, and that this right to redress is not dependent on the outcome of any legal process.
• That reports of violence at a local level are required to be passed up to the national representatives.
• The requirement that people who are close friends with, or people who have worked closely with, a person accused of violence are not to be part of any decision making process.
• It is also positive that an individual is able to refer a complaint directly to the national leadership, bypassing the local leadership.

Weaknesses
In the introductory remarks to Defending Comradely Behaviour it is stated that, “Socialist Alliance recognises that there are serious flaws in the way the Australian legal system deals with both survivors and perpetrators of sexual violence. We are struggling to replace sexist bourgeois law with socialist laws and processes that truly address and reduce all forms of violence”. This statement does not acknowledge that the flaws of the legal system are not simply the consequences of bourgeois laws and capitalist state, but the extent to which ideas that normalise and justify violence against women undermine the ability of survivors to achieve justice; and that these ideas operate within socialist organisations and often persist based on the organisation's rejection of “bourgeois morality around sex”.

The concept of consent does not feature at all in the document. This is a major omission because it is central to the issue, as sex without consent equals rape. A major reason why survivors have so much difficulty in obtaining justice is that in our society statements that a person did not give consent are not readily believed and so survivors find themselves in a situations where they have to prove they didn't give consent rather than the perpetrator having to prove they had consent.

A key issue in the British SWP's handling of the allegation against Martin Smith was that members of the investigation committee mobilised rape myths during the interviews with the survivor “W”. The mobilisation of these myths served to rationalise the denial of “W's” account of what had happened.

Given this, individuals mobilising rape myths and rape apologism to justify and or defend their behaviour and shift the blame onto others is a question that the left needs to address. Defending Comradely Solidarity does not do this. Defending Comradely Solidarity emphasises the importance of educating individuals to shift their world view, e.g. we are all socialised in an oppressive society and we will thus carry and continue to be exposed to problematic and oppressive attitudes. However, if a person is actively mobilising sexist ideas to justify rape and an organisation's response is simply to seek to educate that person you would have to question the extent to which survivors could hope to feel safe in that environment. While education may be appropriate in some circumstances, where members are actively aiding attempts to further victimise a survivor then surely their membership should be called into question. Defending Comradely Solidarity’s anti-harassment section should go into detail here and be explicit that this is the case (if so).

The Socialist Alliance's procedures in handling allegations allows accusations to be investigated by a sub-committee of a relevant body but requires that any decision regarding an individual's membership to be decided by the body as a whole. It's unclear what form this decision would take – would it be a rerunning through of the case or simply an endorsement of a recommendation? If it is the former, it makes it difficult for a survivor's privacy to be maintained and it would also make for a flawed subsequent process. If the process is seen as being purely a formality why refer it back from the sub-committee?

Clause 5.8 of the Socialist Alliance's constitution allows for decisions to suspend or cancel an individual’s membership to be appealed at the organisation's national conference. This is a standard feature of most left organisations’ constitutions. It is unclear on what basis such an appeal can be made. Is it limited to procedural questions or does it extend to a testing of the facts? If it is the latter, maintaining confidentiality would be impossible in such circumstances and it would be a serious disincentive for survivors to report abuse.

Once a decision has been made to exclude an individual from the Alliance it is unclear whether the Alliance or its members can continue to work with them. It is also unclear whether the decision to cancel a person’s membership, and why the decision was made, will be made public. Both of these are questions that need to be answered. If exclusion does not stop the Alliance or its members from continuing to work with an individual whose membership has been cancelled then the disciplinary action will effectively be meaningless and make life extremely difficult for any survivors. Failing to make public a decision to cancel a person’s membership will leave a predatory individual free to be abusive other people in other organisations – lots of left organisations are more than happy to recruit the ex-members of other left organisations, and will trumpet such recruitment as reflecting the superior character of their organisations. To stop predators and abusers from being able to simply do the rounds of the left, it is important that the abusive behaviour is made public. There is an incentive for left groups to not publicise the exclusion of a former member – to not admit that the organisation’s membership included an abusive individual, implications being what that says about their organisation. Due to this pressure it is important to make it very clear that there is an obligation to the broader movement and survivors to make it known when they exclude someone.

Another unanswered question in Defending Comradely Solidarity relates to the tension between maintaining the autonomy of survivors, including their right to confidentiality, and the maintenance of a safer space. What happens when a survivor decides they do not want to proceed with an allegation, or if someone brings a concern forward where the survivor does not want to proceed? It is important that individuals have the autonomy to control their own lives and to not have things that have happened to them discussed without their permission. At the same time it is important that active steps are taken to identify predators and exclude them from organisations. In part this comes down to who the onus is on to raise a concern – responsibility should not have to lie with a survivor making a formal complaint for action to be taken – but also a survivor who for whatever reason doesn't want to participate in a process about something that has happened to them cannot and should not be made to participate in a process, and no information which they provide should be used without consent nor should their right to confidentiality be violated.

A final question focuses on the Socialist Alliance's interaction with individuals or organisations who behave in oppressive ways, or have been accused of behaving in oppressive ways. The guidelines are completely silent on this question, but questions of violence and oppressive behaviour are not simply internal questions and there have long been criticisms of the willingness of left organisations to ally themselves with problematic individuals and organisations when it serves their interests. Doing so sends a strong message about the strength of the left's commitment to the struggle against oppression.

A recent and obvious example is that of Julian Assange. Whilst it is possible to draw a distinction between the campaign by imperialist governments against Wikileaks and the allegations of rape made by two Swedish women against Assange, Socialist Alliance’s statements around Assange have not drawn this distinction clearly and have often a relied on a blurring of these issues to make their arguments. Moreover, while the Socialist Alliance were critical of the Wikileaks Party's preferencing of right-wing parties in the Senate in NSW and WA during the 2013 Federal elections they did not critique whether a person facing allegations of rape should stand for parliament. This sends a specific and negative message to survivors.

How do we address the pressing issue of working class oppressive behaviours directed towards marginalised groups? While it is welcome that the Socialist Alliance has sought to have an internal discussion about these questions and to develop formal guidelines, member experiences in many organisations show that the problem is not simply solved by the development an effective document and policy. The development of the political confidence and will to implement policies if and when an individual with significant social capital behaves in an oppressive way is imperative. Despite the positive aspects of Defending Comradely Solidarity, limited thinking through of the problems associated with oppressive and violent behaviour raises serious concerns for the extent to which it would aid Socialist Alliance members in dealing with problematic behaviour by a prominent member of that organisation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.

Read more...

No-Strike Clauses Hold Back Unions

Stanley Aronowitz
Labor Notes
13 December 2011

When leaders of the Occupy movement’s most reliable labor ally, the Longshore Union (ILWU), declared the union would not participate in Monday’s shutdown of West Coast ports, they illustrated a great weakness plaguing our unions.

Labor is confined by contract unionism, whose core is the no-strike clause.

Recall that during the 1999 mass protests against the World Trade Organization, the ILWU used its power to shut down all West Coast ports for a day, a stroke of exemplary solidarity.

The decision not to support the current call was influenced by the fact that, like almost all unions that sign collective bargaining agreements, the ILWU is bound by a clause barring strikes during the life of the contract. The last time ILWU supported a shutdown of the Oakland port, it suffered a fine of $65,000.

For more than 75 years, the labor movement has been enclosed by law and custom by collective bargaining, whose goal is to achieve a contract that seals in wages, benefits, a grievance procedure, and work rules. In return, workers and their union agree, crucially, to surrender their right to withhold their labor.

The penalties for violation are often severe: stiff fines and imprisonment of union officials. After the three-day walkout by New York City transit workers in 2005, a court order barred check-off of union dues, levied $2.5 million in penalties, and handed the union president a 10-day jail sentence.

Even when unionists and their allies flooded Madison, Wisconsin, last winter with huge protests, there was little debate about the limits of contract unionism.

HOLD US BACK

Why do contracts hold back unions?

1. The contract has the force of law. It is a compromise between labor and the employer, private or public. The workers agree to suspend most of their demands for as long as the contract lasts. In the past decade that period has grown, sometimes to as much as six years. Even if conditions change, the union cannot reopen the contract unless the employer consents.

2. The union is responsible for enforcing the contract, including disciplining the workers. Of course, management regularly bypasses or brazenly violates the contract. To remedy these infractions, the union can grieve and finally arbitrate. Although arbitration is heavily weighted on the employers’ side, workers have no other recourse, under the law of the contract.

If they (rarely, these days) resort to a wildcat walkout or other job action, their union is obliged to renounce the strike and “order” workers back to the job.

3. Under these conditions, the union tends to become conservative, at best, or, at worst, an agent of shop floor workers’ subordination. The weight of the law mostly prevails.

With the employers’ offensive of the last generation, collective bargaining is now mostly a form of collective begging. Yet collective bargaining remains a sacred cow. Few are willing to advocate that, at the minimum, contracts leave the strike weapon unrestricted.

The labor movement has forgotten its own traditions: Until the 1930s, labor contracts were fairly rare. Workers—and not only IWW members—used to fight for their demands continuously and agree to return to work only when they were met.

Skeptics ask why employers should sign contracts if they cannot buy labor peace. But European unions do not, typically, agree to limitations on strikes.

The main factor underlying labor relations is the power of workers and their unions. Until they re-examine the trap of collective bargaining, the downward slide will accelerate.


Stanley Aronowitz teaches sociology at the City University of New York.

Read more...

ILWU solidarty statement in support of ‘Occupy Wall Street’

October 5, 2011

Dear Sisters and Brothers,

On behalf of 40,000 members in the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), I want to thank you for organizing your “Occupy Wall Street” protest in New York City which is inspiring millions of Americans.

Most of us are tired of seeing a handful of the richest corporations and executives behave as though they’re entitled to live like kings at everyone’s expense:

They aren’t paying their fair share of taxes, so schools are cutting back and colleges are
raising fees – leaving students with obscene debts. It’s time for the millionaires – the richest 1% – to start paying their fair share so we can support education and other vital services.

They’re destroying our democracy and right to a voice in the workplace. By making it almost impossible for workers to form unions and negotiate fair agreements, corporate America is dragging down the living standards for all working families.

They’re threatening to destroy Social Security and Medicare for future generations. We can’t allow corporations to privatize and profit from these programs. Instead, we should close the loopholes so corporations and the rich start paying the same contributions as everyone else.

Your decision to bring these and other issues to corporate America’s doorstep is courageous – and involves some risks. We weren’t surprised that some of you have faced beatings and pepper spray from overzealous police. Your crusade to shine a light on the corruption and injustice that’s infecting Wall Street is bound to ruffle some feathers. We’ve experienced some similar rough treatment in Longview, Washington, where ILWU families are also taking a stand against corporate greed. Our fight there is against EGT, a multi-national corporation that took taxpayer subsidies to build a grain export terminal – then betrayed workers and the community.

Like you, ILWU members in Longview have been arrested, beaten and pepper sprayed. We know that justice won’t be won by asking greedy employers for permission or waiting for politicians to pass laws. That’s why we hope that you’ll stand your ground on Wall Street while we do the same in Longview – because An Injury To One Is An Injury To All!

Robert McEllrath
ILWU International President

Read more...

Port actions challenge the 1 percent

Alex Schmaus, Francois Hughes and Lee Sustar look at the port actions shaping up from San Diego to Anchorage and beyond, as Occupy activists target union-busting.
Socialist Worker
December 12, 2011

THE OCCUPY movement will hold coordinated community pickets in every major West Coast port city--San Diego, Los Angeles, Oakland, Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver and Anchorage--on Monday, December 12, despite mounting pressure from employers and some union leaders.

The model for the West Coast effort is the mobilization of some 15,000 people to picket the Port of Oakland during a November 2 day of action. That protest came after police violence against Occupy Oakland nearly killed Iraq war vet Scott Olsen, prompting a call for a general strike in the city.

Now, Occupy activists again want to take action--not just in Oakland, but up and down the West Coast.

While the initial focus of Occupy activists was union-busting by the grain terminal operator EGT in Longview, Wash., the planned pickets will confront other actors on the docks--such as SSA Marine, an anti-labor terminal operator owned by Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs, and the anti-union policies of terminal operators who employ truck drivers to move goods from the docks to warehouses and rail links.


In fact, the date for the action was chosen by Los Angeles port drivers. December 12 is the day of the Virgin of Guadalupe, an important cultural figure in Mexico, and traditionally a day of protest for the largely immigrant port drivers. The drivers been fighting for years against company policies that treat them as independent contractors rather than employees, a practice that forces drivers to be paid per load rather than per hour, and pay for their own trucks.

As Tara Lohan pointed out on Alternet, 82 percent of the 110,000 port drivers in the U.S. are classified as independent contractors. An additional spur for the drivers' protest in LA was the firing in October of some 26 drivers who work for the Toll Group. The reason: they wore Teamsters t-shirts to work.

Thus, on the eve of the December 12 action, port driver activists and supporters said drivers in LA and Long Beach were prepared to stay away from work, and they were appealing to their counterparts in other cities to act in solidarity.

Teamsters in the port of Oakland were also prepared to stay away from their jobs, said Dana Blanchard, a member of the Berkeley Federation of Teachers who is active in the December 12 effort:

This is a huge contradiction to all the press we are getting. After three organized leafleting shifts at the port, the feeling is also that many of the unorganized port drivers will also not come to work tomorrow. The ILWU has also officially e-mailed its members that they are not going to be escorted in by police, and that many terminals have decided to shut down or have skeleton crews in anticipation of the protests. Overwhelmingly, all of the conversations we have had with port drivers when we flier has been positive.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PREDICTABLY, SHIPPING bosses denounced the effort in a coordinated advertising campaign in Bay Area newspapers and media outlets.

More surprising has been the response of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU). Union president Robert McEllrath issued a statement declaring that the Occupy protest was a third-party action not authorized by the ILWU, which cannot call for a work stoppage without violating its contracts.

However, McEllrath's statement outlined steps that union members could take if they felt that the community picket made it unsafe to work--for example, as the result of a large police presence. In that case, members are entitled to notify employers, who would then call upon an arbitrator to make the decision.

But as December 12 approached, ILWU officials ratcheted up their criticism of the community pickets. In an article in Britain's Guardian newspaper, ILWU spokesperson Craig Merrilees was quoted as describing Occupy protesters as "disrespectful, arrogant and misguided." He added: "This is being promoted by a group of people who apparently think they can call general strikes and workplace shutdowns without talking to workers and without involving the unions."

But according to retired ILWU Local 10 member Jack Heyman, ILWU international officials are reacting to pressure from employers, rather than the sentiment in the union rank-and-file to put the heat on EGT in Longview, where the first ship will call on the company's scab grain operation in the next few weeks. He said:

This call by Occupy Oakland for a West Coast solidarity port shutdown is a build-up to when the first ship comes in next month. If Occupy is successful now, then momentum for a coastwide shutdown by longshore workers is highly likely when the scab ship arrives. However, with hostile statements like those emanating from ILWU spokesman Craig Merrilees and President McEllrath it drives a wedge between the union and its activist supporters.

ILWU has usually honored community picket lines like the one in San Francisco in 1977 against apartheid. And when the ILWU shut down all West Coast ports on May Day 2008 to protest the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it didn't check with other port workers' unions, like the machinists or the Teamsters.

ILWU union tops have thwarted union democracy at every turn in the Longview struggle--preventing a special caucus or an emergency meeting of all rank-and-file longshoremen in the Northwest. Occupy represents a popular outrage against the excesses of capitalism as exemplified by Wall Street. They should be greeted with open arms by the ILWU, not shunned and castigated, if unions are to prevail against attacks from the employing class.

In fact, rank-and-file ILWU members are also involved in organizing support for the pickets. "I am a longshoreman, and I support the December 12 blockade against EGT," said Anthony Leviege, another member of ILWU Local 10. "EGT is a threat to the survival of the ILWU."

"These ports are public," said Clarence Thomas, a former official and veteran activist in Local 10. "People have a right to come to the port and protest. The ILWU has historically honored picket lines at the port."

Dan Coffman, president of ILWU Local 21 in Longview, has publicly thanked the Occupy movement and Occupy Oakland for supporting Local 21's struggle.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WHILE THE success of each port action is bound to be uneven, the seriousness with which activists are responding to such an audacious call to action is a sign of the Occupy movement's continuing vibrancy.

Occupy movement supporters along the Gulf of Mexico recently announced that they, too, would join the call by blockading the Port of Houston. This is an ambitious task, however, for several reasons. Houston longshore labor is organized by the International Longshoreman's Association, a more conservative union that doesn't share the ILWU's tradition of honoring community pickets. Moreover, the port of Houston stretches for many miles, making it virtually impossible for a community picket to have much of an impact.

Also away from the West Coast, Occupy Denver plans to show solidarity through a blockade of Wal-Mart's Colorado distribution center, and it has called on all landlocked Occupy supporters to take similar action. And in New York City and Chicago, Occupy activists will target Goldman Sachs with protests as well.

While the impact of the protests will vary widely by city, the December 12 action will have an important impact on the Occupy movement as it debates its next steps following the coordinated police shutdowns of encampments.

For example, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), in the wake of its early endorsement of President Barack Obama's reelection, recently concluded its weeklong "Occupy Congress" actions in Washington, D.C. as part of the union's focus on the 2012 elections. A the same time, Adbusters magazine recently proposed that activists "#OccupyXmas" to disrupt consumer culture.

Occupy Oakland is spearheading a different kind of strategy, which is focused on the struggles of workers at the point of production. As one Occupy Oakland activist put it, "If the mayors of the 1 percent are sharing tactics for class war, then why shouldn't we?"

Occupy Oakland was able to shut down the port on November 2 by setting up community pickets with rank-and-file support. It was crucial to maintain mass community pickets long enough to ensure that a port labor arbitrator rules the picket lines have made it impossible to ensure a safe work environment.

Rank-and-file longshore and trucker support was critical for all of the past Oakland port shutdowns and will be critical for the shutdown on December 12. To build these bonds of solidarity, Occupy Oakland and others on the West Coast have not only been distributing leaflets, but talking with port workers about how to fight union-busting on the waterfront and how to build solidarity between the Occupy movement and organized labor.

By building on this kind of community-labor solidarity seen on December 12 and beyond, we can link the Occupy movement with the effort to organize where workers have power--at the point of production.

Read more...

West Coast Port Shutdown Sparks Heated Debate between Unions, Occupy

Evan Rohar
Labor Notes
December 12, 2011

For the second time in a month, the Occupy movement called for mass action to shut down port operations. This time, the occupiers targeted the entire West Coast.

The Occupy Oakland General Assembly unanimously adopted a proposal November 18 calling for the “blockade and disruption of the economic apparatus of the 1% with a coordinated shutdown of ports on the entire West Coast on December 12.” (General assemblies are meetings, open to all, that make decisions for Occupy groups, using consensus.)

The motion declares solidarity with Longshore Union (ILWU) members in Longview, Washington, in their struggle against grain terminal operator EGT. The company has refused to hire ILWU members and is now in a drawn-out battle that could shape the future of the 4,000 union members who work the Pacific Northwest’s grain elevators.

Occupiers planned the shutdown without consulting with the union, and the ILWU put out a statement December 6 to its members and supporters disclaiming support for the action and claiming its prerogative in the fight against EGT. “The ILWU has a long history of democracy,” wrote ILWU President Bob McEllrath. “Part of that historic democracy is the hard-won right to chart our own course to victory.”

Members of the Occupy movement interpreted the union’s distancing itself as, at best, a legal safeguard against the fines that could result from a work stoppage that violates the contract’s strike bar. At worst, they saw it as a product of the union movement’s timidity, born of decades of retreat and identification with employer interests.

ILWU members and officials expressed alarm at how the port shutdown was called and questioned why the Occupy movements called for action without consulting the people that action would affect most.

Occupy spokespeople responded that they reached out to union members after the shutdown call was made. Kari Koch of Occupy Portland said they have been flyering at shift changes at the port for a week. “We would not be doing this action if we didn’t have any support from the rank and file,” Koch said.

But occupiers didn’t call ILWU Local 8 there, she said. (They sent an email.) Occupiers were worried the local could be legally liable if it coordinated with protesters.

Huge numbers showed up at the gates this morning in Oakland and shut three port gates. Occupiers, who plan to disrupt the afternoon shift as well, reported no animosity from ILWU members and port truckers.

While it’s certainly the case that the union movement needs a kick in the pants, and the occupiers have done a lot to aim the shoe, ILWU members and officers say democracy in movements—union and Occupy alike—means giving say to the people affected, not assuming their participation or support because an action is just.

But Mike Parker, a retired UAW activist in the Bay Area and co-author of Democracy Is Power, said most strikes are inconvenient for someone, including other workers. Their success relies on all workers affected by an action honoring the line, whether or not they felt appropriately warned.

Other unionists involved in the occupy movement say the ILWU should recognize the need for tactical flexibility.

“The Occupy movement is simply taking from labor history,” said Robbie Donohoe, an Electrical Workers member who has been active in organizing for the shutdown. “We’re making it safer for workers to challenge the boundaries of laws that were created to secure the reins of power firmly in the hands of the 1%.”

HERE WE GO
Regardless of whether ILWU leaders support the shutdown, union and community members have done person-to-person outreach to make it succeed.

The Oakland Education Association’s executive board backed the call; President Betty Olsen Jones has been leaftleting port truckers at 6 a.m. along with occupiers and union activists.

A largely immigrant workforce of “independent contractors” that move cargo in and out of the ports, the truckers are legally prevented from unionizing. Some criticized the November 2 port shutdown in Oakland because the truckers were unprepared for the huge march that succeeded in shutting down the port, which trapped many of them for hours. Lacking a union, they have few structures to appeal to for support.

Anthony Levierge of the Bay Area’s ILWU Local 10 and a half-dozen active rank and filers have been passing out flyers and explaining the rationale for the shutdown to fellow members. “It’s been a mixed bag of attitudes,” he said, adding that he believed members would "honor the history and legacy of social justice unionism that ILWU members have fought hard for.”

The West Coast longshore union has a history of honoring community picket lines for good causes, but the question of how those actions are decided—and actually brought to bear against multinational employers who move billions of dollars of goods through the ports—is a complicated matter.

Samantha Levens, a Bay Area member of the Inland Boatmen’s Union, an ILWU affiliate, said education and preparation among the members should have been a first priority. She noted that some previous shutdowns took months to prepare—like a May Day work stoppage in 2008.

When confronted with a picket line at port gates, ILWU members have the right under their coastwide contract to stop work and call an arbitrator to rule on possible safety threats or the validity of the picket line.

Success in shutting down ports along the coast depends upon presenting a credible safety threat to longshore workers. If emergency vehicles cannot make it into the port, or if the workers feel threatened by mass pickets and police presence, they will call an arbitrator to decide whether the action presents a bona fide risk. The decision to call an arbitrator can delay the beginning of work, and if the workers are sent home they may not be paid, depending on the circumstance.

Port bosses warned the ILWU that the 2008 May Day stoppage against the military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan was “unauthorized” but members went through with it regardless.

“Because the members had discussed and debated it before they voted on it and had been building support amongst the ranks heading towards the vote, the buy-in and ownership of the action was firmly in the hands of the members,” Levens said.
THUMBS UP AND DOWN

The Alameda Central Labor Council had a lively debate December 5 when Port Commissioner Victor Uno, who is also an Electrical Workers (IBEW) business manager, moved that the council “does not endorse a Port Shutdown.”

The council’s executive committee approved the motion, but some delegates argued that the Occupy movement deserved labor’s support, others that it deserved at least neutrality. The ILWU Local 10 president’s motion to table passed overwhelmingly.

Eric Larsen, member relations secretary for AFSCME Local 444 and labor liaison with Occupy Oakland, said council leaders wouldn't let him address the council about the port action.

“I pleaded with them to let me speak,” he said. “They would not.”

He said council leaders claimed the reason for rejecting him, and for their lack of support for the shutdown, came from Occupy’s failure to communicate.

On December 9 the building trades council took a position against the shutdown.

ORIGIN: LOS ANGELES
Originally, the idea of a December 12 protest was initiated by Occupy Los Angeles, to coincide with immigrants’ rights activities around Our Lady of Guadalupe Day.

Sarah Knopp, a 12-year member of the Teachers union (UTLA) in Los Angeles, said occupiers decided to target SSA Marine, a terminal operator owned by Goldman Sachs with container terminals in North and South America and in Vietnam.

SSA Marine is notorious for its environmental, labor, and human rights abuses and its exploitation of port truck drivers paid piece rates to move cargo containers on and off the docks. Occupiers were also motivated by the firing of 27 port truckers who work for a separate firm, Toll Group. Those fired had worn Teamster shirts, part of a long-running campaign to beat the legal prohibitions on organizing.

After Oakland Occupy expanded the call to all ports on the West Coast, Occupy L.A. decided to stay with its original plan—a march from Harry Bridges Park to an SSA terminal, and a community picket to block a gate. The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles take up 25 miles of coastland and handle 85 percent of all traffic on the West Coast, an operation too vast to blockade with the numbers the protesters expected.

Knopp and fellow occupiers stood outside a recent ILWU Local 13 meeting and flyered the workers to build support for the SSA action. They received a “totally friendly reception,” Knopp said. “Everyone thinks it’s a great idea.”

“We’re initiating a process where the Occupy movement can build a base in the labor movement,” said Michael Novick, a UTLA retiree.

Saying that L.A. occupiers recognize the ILWU is not a position to act today (and its leadership was not solicited to participate), Novick added that the port truckers may be better placed to carry out the action in this crucial port. With no union contract, they face no sanction except loss of a day’s pay.

A loose association of port truck organizers who helped to shut the port on May 1, 2006, when immigrants rights protests shook the country, met December 9 to decide whether to attempt a similar action December 12.

Ernesto Nevarez, a port truck organizer, said truckers at the Los Angeles-Long Beach port stayed away for hours Monday morning as nearly 1,000 marchers rallied at port gates.

SPLIT, DEMOCRATICALLY
Every ILWU officer and international staffer reiterates the union’s solidarity with the Occupy movement and its goals. But the December 12 action has annoyed many.

Cameron Williams, president of Local 19 in Seattle, said, “It’s kind of like if I planned a party at your house and didn’t ask about it.” Local officers say occupiers circumvented the union’s democratic process.

“The occupiers have been understandably confused by mixed signals from individuals in the ILWU,” said Craig Merrilees, communications director for the international. He believes some members are speaking to occupiers without the backing of the organization’s internal democratic process.

President Scott Mason of Local 23 in Tacoma, Washington, said he hasn’t “felt much movement either way” from the members.

“Local 8 officers aren’t in support of it,” said Jeff Smith, president of the Portland longshore local. “If it went to a rank-and-file vote I don’t know what would happen.”

Rank and filers won’t get a chance to have their say. Local 8’s next membership meeting is December 14.

Occupiers leafleted the dispatch hall but members say they might have succeeded in convincing more of the Portland rank and file if outreach had started before the action was set.

Levens expressed support for the Occupy movement’s goal—to confront corporate power—but not its approach in this action.

“The lack of communication with the members leaves the Occupy activists and union members without the benefit of sharing our [earlier] Oakland experience with shutting down the port and community pickets,” said Levens, who has been active in Oakland general assemblies.

Parker said the constraints on unions are too great to expect a better process.

“Even if Occupy Oakland were the best, most democratic it could be, there is no way that they could consult with elected leaders of the ILWU,” he said. “Unions are faced with a choice of gambling everything [by openly supporting a strike] or of protecting themselves by disclaiming responsibility and honoring lines by using loopholes.”

It doesn’t help that the institutions assessing liability—right-wing courts—are not on labor’s side.

Parker says the occupiers may have to look for new ways to hit the 1%.

“The continued focus on the docks, because it is easy and takes advantage of the solidarity traditions of the dock workers, makes the dock workers themselves the targets and the targets start resenting it,” Parker said.

SOLIDARITY WITH LONGVIEW
Occupy Oakland said a big part of the reason for today’s action was solidarity with ILWU Local 21 in its struggle against grain shipper EGT. Some in the movement say the ILWU officialdom, which badly needs to beat EGT, is merely covering its legal bases by distancing itself from the action.

But leaders of locals up and down the coast say a coastwide work stoppage for Local 21 could actually harm its struggle, by uniting employers to support EGT.

A more immediate fear could be legal reprisals resulting from an injunction and contempt charges leveled by a federal judge against Local 21 and the international. Fines for the local’s disruptions, blockades, and grain-dumping this summer have already totaled $315,000.

If a federal judge determines that occupiers are acting on the union’s behalf, Mason said, “we can be charged $5,000 for every incident.”

Still, Local 21 President Dan Coffman, who gave a speech about EGT to Occupy Oakland the day after its general assembly adopted the shutdown call, does not conceal his enthusiasm for the movement.

Coffman cited the November 2 port shutdown as an inspiration to his members, who have been on the picket line for six months.

Supporters of Occupy and ILWU Local 21 are preparing for January, when a ship headed for Asia is scheduled to retrieve grain from the disputed elevator in Longview. An independently organized action could allow the ILWU to circumvent the legal minefield set in front of its own membership.

“We’re going to do whatever we can to stop that ship from being loaded,” Coffman vowed.

Correction: The story originally mischaracterized events at the Alameda Central Labor Council.

Eduardo Soriano-Castillo contributed to this story from Oakland.

Read more...

Organizing for the port shutdown

Lee Sustar challenges the assertion that the Occupy movement is trying to impose a shutdown of West Coast docks without support from port workers.
Socialist Worker
December 8

THE OCCUPY movement is trying to strong-arm longshore workers and truck drivers into shutting down West Coast ports December 12--or so say critics of the action.

They're wrong.

Those organizing for action on the docks are neither the outside agitators described by employers nor the ultra-left adventurists snubbed by union leaders and their apologists. Rather, they are a grassroots network that includes rank-and-file longshore union members; nonunion port drivers; longstanding labor militants from a variety of unions; and new activists, union and nonunion, who have joined the Occupy movement to try to challenge the country's economic priorities.


Among those new activists is Scott Olsen, who was critically injured in a police attack on Occupy Oakland. In a statement to ILWU members, Olsen wrote: "You do the work--THEY, the global maritime bosses, profit at your expense. Your safety and your jobs are always at stake."

And there's no sharp divide between Occupy activists and ILWU members and other workers who are also organizing to build awareness of the community picket.

"I think people [on the docks] do have sympathy and feel connected with Occupy as a whole," said Anthony Leviege, an ILWU member for 11 years who is active with Occupy Oakland. Working alongside other Occupy activists to leaflet the docks in recent weeks, he estimated that about 50 percent of the workers he's talked to expressed some sympathy for the December 12 action.

Leviege is active in the Occupy movement for the same reason he is active in the ILWU--to improve the lives of working people, he said. "It's because of my background--coming from the ghettos, coming from poverty, seeing young men die early or go to jail," he said.

David Villegas, a member of ILWU Local 13 in Los Angeles and a former truck driver in the port, also reported a sympathetic reception to the flyers for December 12. "Everyone is wondering if they will stand for something, or fall for nothing," he said.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE DECEMBER 12 call to action is a grassroots effort to deepen the links between Occupy and longshore labor. Activists are focusing on multiple targets: EGT, the transnational corporation that's trying to eliminate ILWU jobs at a new grain export facility in Longview, Wash.; SSA Marine, the port terminal operator owned by Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs; Toll Group, a trucking employer that fired 26 Los Angeles-Long Beach drivers in October for wearing Teamster t-shirts to work; and port employers generally for their hard-line opposition to truck drivers' union organizing.

Essentially, the call for the December 12 action reflects an effort by the Occupy movement to tap labor's social power at a key node in the capitalist system.

"For the first time in decades in this country, the labor movement is being confronted with a genuine movement from below, a populist movement that is challenging the very fundamentals of our capitalist system," said Jack Heyman, a retired member of ILWU Local 10 who is building support for the December 12 action. "Occupy is resonating very deeply within the ranks of labor."

The potential of this new coalition--which was key to shutting down the Port of Oakland with a community picket of thousands on November 2--has clearly alarmed employers, who have launched an aggressive advertising campaign to denounce the December 12 effort. The Washington Post carried the same line, declaring that workers don't support the plan.

Those views weren't surprising coming from port bosses and the corporate media. But even Cal Winslow, a labor historian and researcher at the University of California-Berkeley, wrote an article claiming that the action is being organized over the heads of ILWU members and other port workers:

I confess to knowing little about the officers of the ILWU, the same for the rank and file. But now, for better or worse, the case is that neither the officers of the ILWU nor any significant section of its members support the December actions planned by Occupy Oakland.

In fact, veteran activists in Local 10, such as Clarence Thomas, have been publicly building support for the community picket line along with Occupy activists.

And if Winslow is correct that labor was united in rejecting the December 12 action, then it should have been easy for the executive committee of the Alameda Labor Council, which includes the Oakland area, to pass a proposed resolution explicitly opposing the protest. At the council delegate's meeting December 5, a motion to disavow the action was presented by Victor Uno, business manager and financial secretary of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595, who is also a commissioner of the Port of Oakland.

Uno's resolution to oppose the December 12 action reflects the view of trade union leaders who may be sympathetic to Occupy's criticisms, but who are opposed to militant actions that might destabilize labor's relationship with employers and Democratic Party politicians. Given the support of the executive council, Uno may have expected his resolution to pass fairly easily.

Instead, an hour-long debate ensued, in which most delegates thought that a statement of opposition to the December 12 action would send the wrong message, said Jenna Woloshyn, a member of Teamsters Local 70 in Oakland and a driver at UPS, who attended the meeting.

"The executive committee's argument was that all the unions with workers at the port were not endorsing the action," Woloshyn said. "They failed to mention that just because they were not endorsing didn't mean they were coming out with positions against the action, as this resolution would put the council on record for being. The Teamsters are not actively against the shutdown. Local 70 officials spoke against the proposal."

The debate ended when ILWU Local 10 President Richard Mead, rather than support the motion to repudiate the December 12 action, moved to postpone action on the resolution, effectively defeating it.

If labor council delegates were able to defeat Uno's motion, it was because they were responding to activism on the ground in the ports. Those working to build the December 12 action are relating to longstanding organizing efforts by port drivers. They are also building upon a tradition of ILWU Local 10 of respecting community picket lines that have shut down the docks to protest apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s and Israel today, as well as shipments of cargo to support the U.S. war in Iraq.

Local 10 has a history of taking action over political issues, such as initiating a coastwide port shutdown on May Day 2008 in protest of the Iraq war. Earlier this year, Local 10 shut down the docks in the Bay Area April 4 in response to the AFL-CIO's call for a day of action in support of Wisconsin public-sector workers, who lost bargaining rights through anti-union legislation. The employers promptly sued Local 10 for that action.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WHAT, THEN, is to be made of ILWU President Robert McEllrath's statement disassociating the union from the December 12 call to action? "Only ILWU members or their elected representatives can authorize job actions on behalf of the union, and any decisions made by groups outside of the union's democratic process do not hold water, regardless of the intent," McEllrath wrote.

McEllrath is certainly correct to point out that ILWU members must democratically decide on the actions of their union. And an official ILWU call for a job action on December 12 would invite legal retribution from employers.

But McEllrath, in fact, mischaracterizes the December 12 action. The Occupy movement isn't attempting to "authorize a job action" by the ILWU, but to establish a community picket line and ask ILWU members and other port workers to honor it on the basis of solidarity.

This isn't a far-out idea, given the ILWU tradition of respect for community picket lines and the union's early support for the Occupy movement. In fact, across the bay, the San Francisco Labor Council passed a resolution in October that declared Occupy San Francisco to be a "sanctioned union strike line." In other words, the labor council recognized that Occupy was a workers' movement deserving of union solidarity.

What's more, even ILWU members who sympathize with Occupy's call for a December 12 action must operate under the constraint of a union contract that bans strikes.

As McEllrath's statement explains, if ILWU members stay away from their jobs December 12, it will be the result of a port labor arbitrator's ruling that the picket lines have made it impossible to ensure a safe work environment.

As Villegas of Local 13 explained, "Our contract says we have to work 365 days a year, no matter what"--and an official call to action would violate that. That's why rank-and-file ILWU members who support the community picket are leafleting the ports alongside Occupy activists.

This dynamic--union members expressing sympathy for militant action that labor officials reject--shouldn't be a surprise to Cal Winslow, an editor of the recent book Rebel Rank and File: Labor Militancy and Revolt from Below During the Long 1970s. In his introduction to the book, Winslow describes the spread of wildcat strikes, actions called without the authorization of union leaders, which accounted for one-third of strikes in the late 1960s and early 1970s:

Wildcat strikers were the shock troops of the "rebellions from below," and their strikes became all but routine elements in contractual disputes and grievance negotiations. The strikers were often repudiations of the union leadership and, implicitly, of the entire postwar system of industrial relations.

Somehow, Winslow, who can write at length about rank-and-file activism 40 years ago, doesn't recognize the initial stirrings of similar militancy today.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

IN FACT, the idea for a protest on December 12 originated not with Occupy Oakland, but with immigrant rights and labor activists in Los Angeles who support the organizing efforts of port truck drivers in the LA-Long Beach ports.

When Occupy Los Angeles labor activists held a meeting November 6 to discuss how to broaden the movement, the idea of an action in the ports was natural. Some 26 drivers at the Toll Group had been fired a few days earlier for their efforts to organize with the Teamsters, and December 12 was a traditional day of protests in Southern California among Mexican immigrants, who commemorate Our Lady of Guadalupe on that date.

After discussions with labor activists in the harbor area, the Occupy LA group decided to focus their protest on SSA Marine, a terminal operator owned by Goldman Sachs and known for anti-labor practices towards port truckers and labor worldwide, said Michael Novick, a retired LA teacher who has been active in the harbor community for years.

The protest isn't intended to have the movement substitute itself for the ILWU, Novick said. "We understand they have limits on what actions they can take, and we can take action as community people." He continued: "We can't put ourselves forward as representing them. But we can represent the issues and the interests of the 99 percent."

As in Oakland, Occupy activists in LA and Long Beach have leafleted the docks and ILWU union meetings and gotten a friendly reception, said Sarah Knopp, a member of United Teachers Los Angeles.

A key moment of building solidarity came December 2 during a four-hour strike by clerical workers, Knopp said. "Leah Marinkovich, a striking clerk, told me, 'What you guys are doing in the Occupy Movement is helping us to put pressure on our bosses to settle.'"

Meanwhile, port trucker activists are debating whether to carry out a port shutdown in LA and Long Beach on December 12, said Ernesto Nevarrez, a harbor community activist who helped the drivers organize the total shutdown of the ports in 2004 and 2006.

While the 2006 action was in conjunction with the nationwide protests against anti-immigrant legislation, the drivers have been fighting since the 1980s for the right to organize a union. Employers regard the drivers as independent contractors who can't form a union without violating antitrust laws--laws that originally targeted corporations.

Over the last week, Nevarrez and other activists distributed flyers to 60 to 70 percent of port drivers, he said. As in previous years, the drivers will meet to decide what action to take. "The decision on whether to shut the port down will come this Friday [December 9] when all the drivers will show up at payday at the companies," he said. "Someone at each company will say, 'Let's talk about it,' and some of the discussions will be formal. They will form a collective, and the collective at each company will reach a consensus."

Of course, there's no guarantee that the port actions will be successful up and down the coasts. That depends on the actions of port drivers and whether the community pickets are large enough to convince an port labor arbitrator that it's "unsafe" for ILWU members to cross the picket lines. That's what happened in Oakland November 2, when some 15,000 activists marched to the port during the evening shift change as part of a general strike call in response to police repression that nearly killed Iraq war veteran Scott Olsen several days earlier.

Now, Olsen himself is appealing to ILWU members to respect the community picket line on December 12. His statement reflects the spirit of the alliance between the labor and Occupy movements:

The bosses have been getting away with it for far too long. We can beat them, but we have to work together--unions, rank-and-file workers and Occupy.

I was on my second pump to Iraq when ILWU--when you--led by your Vietnam vets, shut down the West Coast ports on May Day 2008 to stop the war. The best support I could have asked for in Iraq was from you brothers and sisters who wanted us home, alive and well--sooner, not later. I spent two pumps in Iraq looking for our enemies. Only after coming back home did I discover our greatest enemy--that is the enemy we are fighting now.

Where the Oakland action can draw upon ILWU Local 10's traditions of solidarity and respect for community picket lines, and the LA-Long Beach protesters are linking up with the ongoing port drivers' struggle, Occupy activists in other port cities are still making connections with ILWU members and other port workers.

But by focusing on labor's potential power at the point of production, the December 12 actions point the way forward for the Occupy movement. Everyone who wants to see the revival of a fighting labor movement should support these actions.

Read more...

Community Action Against Auctioning People's Property

This video was posted on Kathleen Hanna's Blog.

Community action against the foreclosure and auctioning of people's property in Brooklyn. Nine activists were arrested as part of the protest

Read more...

East Timor's future: Solidarity is still needed

By Lisbeth Latham

The withdrawal of Indonesian troops from East Timor was a significant victory for the East Timorese resistance movement, and the international solidarity movement. But the struggle for independence came at a price.

Since the Indonesian invasion in 1975, more than 200,000 East Timorese have been killed. After the East Timorese voted overwhelmingly for independence on August 30, the Indonesian army (TNI) and police, and their gangs of “militia”, killed and forcibly deported thousands of East Timorese and destroyed East Timor's infrastructure. More than 85,000 people remain unaccounted for.


There was a massive response from working people internationally. In Australia, thousands mobilised calling for an immediate armed intervention to stop the violence. In Australia, the federal Coalition government was forced to act, going against 24 years of support for the Indonesian occupation.

Australian support for genocide

Throughout 1999, Prime Minister John Howard's government denied that the terror gangs in East Timor had any links with the Indonesian military and claimed that any problems were due to “rogue elements” in the TNI. It argued against a United Nations security force overseeing the ballot, despite widespread violence having already twice forced the referendum to be postponed.

Canberra supported the Indonesian government and the TNI because it saw this as vital to maintaining the stability required for Australian business to make profits in East Timor and Indonesia. Despite being forced to act to help East Timor, political stability and profits continue to be the driving forces behind Australian foreign policy.

The government continues to protect the TNI. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has blocked the International Commission of Jurists from interviewing East Timorese refugees.

As well, the Australian Federal Police have initiated disciplinary action against an intelligence officer who was in East Timor because he reported to a parliamentary standing committee on the collaboration between the TNI and the militia.

The government has spent $1 billion on the military operation in East Timor, but has committed only $6 million to rebuilding East Timor. It continues to push for the deportation of East Timorese who are attempting to obtain asylum in Australia following the 1991 Dili massacre, despite the fact that much of East Timor remains in ruins.

Meanwhile, the Howard government is attempting to turn its foreign policy defeat into a victory -- making the Australian people pay for strengthening its capacity to intervene militarily in the region. The government's “Timor tax” -- an increase in the Medicare levy -- will help to cover the costs of having troops in East Timor and the establishment of two more combat-ready battalions.

People aid not militarism

The Australian government should pay massive war reparations to East Timor, funded by a levy on the businesses that have had made profits in East Timor and Indonesia.

Much of the aid that is going to East Timor is not finding its way to the people. Most well-paying jobs go to non-East Timorese and those locals who do have jobs are paid wages that are the same as during the occupation. Since the arrival of Western non-government organisations in East Timor, the cost of food and basic goods has risen dramatically.

On January 5, the Timorese Socialist Party led a workers' protest outside the United Nations building calling for the employment of East Timorese, increased wages, an increased minimum wage and a reduction in prices. The solidarity movement should support such actions, and the right of the East Timorese people to control the transition process.

Resistance demands that East Timorese refugees be able to enter Australia without visas, be allowed free access to Australian universities and be provided with support to return to East Timor if they choose.

There is still much to be done. Resistance will continue to build campaigns alongside the solidarity group Action in Solidarity with Indonesia and East Timor, and will keep young people informed through Resistance magazine.

From Green Left Weekly issue #390

Read more...

Why socialists called for troops to Timor

By Lisbeth Latham

With the United Nations intervention in East Timor underway, the debate among left activists over what were the correct demands in response to the slaughter in East Timor continues.

There is general agreement on the need to force the Indonesian army (TNI) to withdraw from East Timor and disarm the militias, and that the Australian government must end military ties with the Indonesian regime, withdraw recognition of Indonesia's annexation of East Timor and recognise East Timor as an independent country.

The disagreement revolves around whether it was correct to call on the Australian government and the UN to send troops into East Timor to stop the bloodshed.

Resistance supported UN troops being sent into East Timor for three reasons:

• It was a way in which to force the immediate withdrawal of Indonesian troops and allow East Timor to be independent;
• It would stop the genocide of the East Timorese;
• It would undermine the Australian government's alliance with the Indonesian regime, weaken the Indonesian military and strengthen the struggle for democracy in Indonesia.

Was the call for "troops in" correct? This needs to be judged by the results of the demand being met. Only a few days after the intervention was announced, the TNI said it would withdraw 80% of its personnel from East Timor. This was a victory for the East Timorese people and marked a stalling of TNI's campaign. It is vital that pressure is maintained to ensure that a complete withdrawal occurs as rapidly as possible.

The International Socialist Organisation (ISO) at first argued that the demand for "troops in" could not be met as the Australian government and the UN had no wish to act against the Indonesian regime. When the mass actions around Australia did force Howard to send troops, the ISO argued that the dispatch of UN troops would result in:

• UN troops participating in the slaughter of the East Timorese and acting to create a dependent client state;
• Australians developing illusions in the capacity of the United Nations and Australian imperialism to conduct humanitarian interventions; and
• A decline in the East Timor solidarity movement.

Role of international troops
The deployment of Australian troops into East Timor was an attempt to quell mass discontent at the Australian government's failure to act to stop TNI's terror campaign against the East Timorese. In these circumstances, it would not have helped Canberra to achieve its goal if the UN troops allowed the slaughter to continue.

Trying to turn its defeat into a victory, the Howard government is claiming that it always intended to intervene. By arguing that the government actually wanted to send troops to East Timor (and that it must therefore serve the interests of imperialism rather than the East Timorese) the ISO has swallowed Howard's lies. This illustrates the ISO's lack of confidence in the capacity of mass mobilisations to change the policies of governments.

The ISO's assertion that Western countries such as Australia will try to exploit an independent East Timor following the intervention is true. But Australia does not need troops there to do this; it is already happening. Australian businesses benefit most from profits resulting from the Timor Gap Treaty.

To argue that the Australian government, or any other Western government, requires troops on the ground to make East Timor economically dependent ignores the reality that underdeveloped countries are economically tied to, and exploited by, the imperialist countries. This dominance will continue until there are successful anti-capitalist revolutions, not just in the Third World, but also in the imperialist countries.

Building illusions in the UN?
The argument that to call on the Australian government and/or the UN to send troops into East Timor "sows illusions" in these institutions is wrong. Through building a movement around specific demands which will solve the problems, we can expose the oppressive nature of capitalist institutions.

While the ISO supports demanding that the government junk its repressive industrial relations legislation and university fees, it opposes calling on the government to send troops to halt the slaughter in East Timor. What is the difference between demanding government action domestically and internationally?

In both cases, Resistance calls on the government to act in the interests of working people. While forcing a government to grant reforms can generate illusions in the capacity of capitalism to meet society's needs, the socialist movement's role is to point out that such reforms are only concessions, which the government will attempt to take back when the movement is not so strong.

Active involvement in mobilising large numbers of people to win, defend and extend such reforms can break people's illusions in the benevolence of the capitalist state. To refuse to place demands on the government would mean that we abstain from the battle to change people's consciousness.

UN intervention or union bans
The argument that calling on the UN/Australia to intervene in East Timor is counterposed to trade union activity is totally false. Unions engaged in industrial action and supported the mass protests calling for armed intervention. Union bans alone would have taken months to affect the Indonesian regime. The East Timorese people did not have months to spare.

The ISO demand for a general strike to stop the slaughter in East Timor was absurd and it had no support. An ISO rally with this demand only attracted a handful of people. If a general strike did take place  -  something Resistance would welcome  -  what would be its central demand? According to the ISO, it would be "more union bans". Focusing exclusively on trade union bans let the Australian government off the hook because it placed no demands on the Howard government to stop the slaughter.

The ISO have said that troops going into East Timor risked further bloodshed. This concedes to the pacifist argument that all violence is bad. It ignores the fact that the East Timorese were facing genocide.

The only practical way to end the slaughter immediately was to send an armed force strong enough to counter the TNI and militia violence.

Resistance supports the right of liberation movements to defend themselves from their oppressors. Socialists in the United States argued in the 1950s, '60s and '70s that African-American communities, in the face of organised racist violence by organisations like the Ku Klux Klan and the police, should be able to arm themselves. Socialists demanded that US government troops defend black communities and protect black students who were exercising their right to attend predominantly white schools.

When the government refused, socialists were able to expose the government's racism. In instances where the civil rights movement forced the government to deploy troops, as in Little Rock to enforce the ending of segregation in education, it was a defeat for the racists and a confidence boost for the oppressed group struggling for equal rights.

Decline in the mobilisations
The public mobilisations for East Timor have declined since the announcement that troops would be sent because the movement's main demand has been won. Most of the people participating in the protests did so because they wanted to stop the genocide. For ISO members to argue that it would have been better for the movement if troops did not go suggests that they believe it would have been better for the killing to continue.

Continued mass killing of East Timorese might have meant that the protests would have continued to grow in the short term, but this would not have lasted long. It is likely that TNI would have completed its slaughter of the pro-independence activists in East Timor within a few weeks.

This would have been a massive defeat for the East Timorese nation and would have profoundly demoralised the international solidarity movement. Surely socialists should advocate policies which prevent genocide and slaughter.

The fact that the solidarity movement won its main demand provides a basis for building larger mobilisations in the future. It has shown many people that mass action can force the Australian government to do what the Australian people want it to.

To maintain the momentum, we must now raise demands which further challenge the government's foreign policy and which build public support for the independence struggle in East Timor and the struggle for democracy in Indonesia.

Resistance demands:

• No increases in military spending! The "defence" budget should be redirected to reconstructing East Timor. Australian business, such as BHP, Rio Tinto and Woodside Petroleum, which have profited from the Indonesian occupation of East Timor and the repression in Indonesia should pay reparations.
• Put those responsible for crimes against humanity in East Timor on trial! Not only Suharto, Wiranto, Prabowo, but also their Australian accomplices  -  from Whitlam to Howard.
• End all military ties with the Indonesian regime!
• Let all refugees stay in Australia and grant asylum with immediate residency to any East Timorese seeking refugee status!
• Indonesian troops out of East Timor!
• Recognise East Timor as a sovereign country! The East Timorese people alone should decide for how long UN troops remain on their soil and what they can do there.

[Latham Latham is a member of the Resistance national executive.]

-----------------

Read more...

Rage against the regime: Students fight for democracy in Indonesia

Lisbeth Latham

Last May mass demonstrations toppled one of the most brutal dictators in the world -- President Suharto of Indonesia. Having held power for over 32 years, with the full backing of most of the world's rich and powerful countries, Suharto was thought invincible by many.

Protests engulfed the whole of Indonesia, sweeping every campus, in every city and town. Students took to the streets, in defiance of military orders not to leave campus, to demand that Suharto resign.

The support for the student movement was grew daily. Scared by the massive demonstrations and the possibility of losing control, one by one Suharto's cronies began to call for his resignation. Finally, Suharto handed power to his vice president, B.J. Habibie.

Despite the change of the regime's face, not much else has changed. In the months since the fall of Suharto, the lot of most Indonesians has continued to worsen. The poor bear the brunt of the economic crisis, while the rich continue to hold power and protect their wealth.

The plummeting value of the rupiah, Indonesia's currency, and austerity programs enforced by the International Monetary Fund caused an additional 6 million Indonesians to slip below the poverty line in the space of four months.

The prices of life's necessities have skyrocketed -- medicines by 500%, rice by 300%. Many factories have closed, and millions have lost their jobs. The average income of Indonesians has dropped by at least 60% over the last six months.

The `bailouts'

Meanwhile, the rich in Indonesia have survived virtually unscathed. Suharto, worth around US$60 billion before the crisis, was estimated by the CIA to be the richest man in the world. While many of his Indonesian possessions will have depreciated, billions more are stashed away overseas.

Despite repeated popular calls for Suharto's wealth to be expropriated to lessen the effects of the economic crisis, the Habibie regime refuses to act. Instead, it blocks access to Suharto's residence with tanks and barricades.

The purpose of the “bailout” of Indonesia by the IMF and World Bank is to service the debts of Indonesian big business to international banks, not to ease the suffering or feed the Indonesian people.

The bailout is not a free handout. The Indonesian workers and peasants will have to pay back “their” debts. The Australian government, a long-time friend of the regime, has contributed $1 billion to this.

The struggle continues

In November, the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), a body stacked with the military and appointees of Suharto, met to plan a new election. Recognising that this body would reinforce the status quo, hundreds of thousands of students took to the streets to prevent the meeting and to demand “total reform”.

The military opened fire, killing 13 and wounding hundreds more.

In response, the students, workers and peasants surged onto the streets in their millions and occupied military bases, government buildings, radio and TV stations and airports. They demanded an end to the military's role in politics, the establishment of a provisional government not connected to the old regime, new elections and the arrest and seizure of the assets of Suharto, Habibie and Wiranto (head of the armed forces).

Many of the activists who had been part of the campaign to topple Suharto had argued in the months after his resignation that the movement should give the new regime a chance.

The radical wing of the movement, led by the People's Democratic Party (PRD), argued that the overthrow of Suharto would not overcome the problems facing Indonesian society. It put forward demands to meet the needs of the people and called for the resignation of Habibie.

The PRD is also the first Indonesian group to support the East Timorese people's struggle for self-determination.

The PRD argues that, for the movement to succeed, it must involve all oppressed sections of the population. During the November events, based on the agitation of PRD members, thousands of the urban poor and peasants were drawn into the mobilisations. This demonstrated that students can reach and politicise broader layers of people with the right demands.

Building solidarity

Resistance has always opposed the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. Resistance was one of the first organisations in Australia to build solidarity with the movement for democracy in Indonesia.

As a socialist organisation, Resistance opposes the imperialist policies of Australian governments, both Labor and Liberal. Canberra has supported the suppression of the rights of the East Timorese and Indonesians to protect the interests of Australian big business. Resistance supports and publicises the policies and activities of the radical PRD.

Resistance has called an international day of solidarity with the Indonesian student movement for May 22. The action coincides with the anniversary of the May 21 overthrow of Suharto.

Protests around the country, and the world, will mobilise support for the Indonesian and East Timorese movements against the Indonesian dictatorship. In Indonesia this year, more than 20 student activists have been shot dead and scores more wounded or detained. Thousands of East Timorese students have been killed or jailed since their country was invaded.

In both countries, students have vowed not to end their protests until the military are out of politics and full freedom is won.

The May 22 protests will demand: free the political prisoners; free the detained student activists; end all ties to the Indonesian military; and withdraw recognition of the Indonesian occupation of East Timor.

Activist tour to Indonesia

Resistance is coordinating an activist tour of Indonesia, jointly sponsored by the Student and People's Committee for Democracy (KOMRAD) and the student group Students in Solidarity with Democracy in Indonesia (SMID).

The tour will be a chance for students from Australia and New Zealand to travel to Indonesia and stay with activists of the democracy movement. Meetings will be organised with students, East Timorese activists, high school students, women, trade unionists, the urban poor and gay and lesbian organisations.

It will be a chance to share experiences of struggle in Australia and learn from the movement in Indonesia.

Resistance is inviting interested students to join the tour. It will leave Australia in early April and last 10 days. The cost will be approximately $1200. Places are very limited. Phone Lisbeth Latham at (02) 9690 1230 or fill out the clip-off below.

From Green Left Weekly issue #346

Read more...