Occupy and ILWU

Though in the same general geographic area, I'm very far removed and don't know exactly whats happening. I hope some folks in the region could chime in.

Alot of the points raised Local 19 resolution are indeed troubling.

I've heard the argument that it isn't just the ILWU that has a right to take action against their employer. I think generally speaking that is true. Like in cases where an employers means of production are literally killing a community and such, you just gotta stop it. But what about this particular case? If the points raised in the resolution have some roots in reality, this doesn't seem good strategy even a bit.

Or is that resolution the result kind of fear-mongering from a conservative union leadership. Warning of the dangers of mingling with Occupy?

All very interesting to say the least, thanks for the posts Juan.

Oh damn, read the first link that Juan posted. Seems like some sort of inter-union issues with animosity between two locals or something?

I'm more read up on the Longview situation. Here is hoping none of this shit fucks with the action to stop the next grain ship when she finally comes in.

I've skimmed the Local 19 Resolution. This seems consistant with the line that the International ILWU has promoted going into December 12th.

Here's some comments I wrote to a comrade the other day.

"On 1/11/12, <syndicalistnyc

> Thanks ..... I skimmed real fast as I'm ready to leave work.
>
> Without a detail reading, I think some of this is a fight for
> "leadership control" of the Longview struggle. The WA ILWU Locals are
> more conservative, even if job conscious as the Longview struggle
> indicates. A quick look at the websites show American flags,
> etc....welll, the last time I looked at them they did.
>
> Again, I need to read closely and in detail. Between more conservative
> working members and more radical retirees. Perhaps some of this will
> portend an internal ILWU fight.
>
> I'll read the article and share some more thoughts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It basically confirms what my quick read (and what the authors themselves said).

The one unique thing about the ILWU is the picket line question. If,
for example, community pickets become a norm, with workers honoring
them, it becomes a control of that tactic and ability to control the
tactic....and the possibility for the PMA to come down hard on the
ILWU, not the folks in the community. It's can be problematic as well
as a good anti-boss method.

The authors write:

'Many of us came away from Friday’s action more determined to support
Longview rank and filers who risked so much to be present in Seattle
to build with the Occupy movements. We believe that together, we can
present a 21st century version of class struggle based on the
principle: An Injury to One is an Injury to All. Narrow minded,
parochial tunnel visions held by bureaucrats and their loyal
followers, will only destroy class struggle. ....
The problem is that old forms of struggle
that gave birth to the unions no longer work in this globalized world,
and the union leaders are sending goons to prevent us from building
something new that actually would work; they are trying to prevent us
from transcending their dying structures, and they are insisting that
we all go down with the ship.'

There's both a truism to this....and a problem. As well as a clarity issue.

The analysis of American trade unionism is mainly true. The problem is
folks can not expect the ILWU hierarchy and its multipule local
hierarichies not to defend, as you say, their truf. And definately not
by and from "outsiders".

Of course, there are many "Catch 22's" here. For the ILWU, the loss of
some solid community support. And for the Occupiers, the break in an
uneasy tactical alliance. Perhaps what this does is sharpen the below
the surfice schism
and tensons and allows for more direct rank and file appeal increasing
the workerist base and extending militancy threough relation building.
I dunno. I dunno the Locals
or their memberships at all. So this is idle speculation that could be
incorrect."

I think you're accurate about the conservatism of the Washington locals, but I've seen critiques saying the ILWU International insists on American flags at demos to show "patriotism."

The union conservatives keep harping on the fact that actions (even if they are "community pickets" where an arbitrator decides they're a "health and safety" hazard and sends workers home with pay) at any of the intermodal container ports -- all of which are under contract with PMA -- would be secondary boycotts in violation of Taft-Hartley. Which means instead of activist demos, they need to be truly wildcat strikes that are large and effective enough to neutralize management's invoking their illegality. The only illegal strike is one that loses!

The day of the sabotage at the Longview EGT terminal on September 8th sparked wildcat strikes at these 5 ports:

1.) Anacortes
2.) Everett
3.) Seattle
4.) Tacoma
5.) Portland

so I'm sure the bureaucrats at the highest level, the International, are freaking out about lockouts -- especially with a new contract coming up in 2014 and the PMA aiming to introduce "labor saving" technology, like RFID and GPS, which would eliminate the job of many IWLU clerks (who still manually scan barcode on the physical containers themselves) and longshore workers. Container ports like Hamburg and Rotterdam have already done this:

The ILWU is deeply divided and the Occupy activists are clearly not connecting well with rank-and-file workers. Some of the actions are being called by a bureaucratic Occupy elite in a vanguardist way, oblivious to the longshore workers themselves. Here's what a Bay Area based Inland Boatmens Union (IBU, a maritime division of the ILWU) member says about that lack of connection with ILWU workers for the December 12th port shutdown:

Not to derail, just for information purposes. The question of automation is fery much on the New Jersey bosses agenda as well:
Longshoremen's union rallies against plans to automate Jersey City-Bayonne port
http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index.ssf/2012/01/post_104.html

All Eyes On Longview: An Injury To One Is An Injury To All
http://insurgentnotes.com/2012/01/all-eyes-on-longview-an-injury-to-one-is-an-injury-to-all/

Any way you could expand on this? I agree that there appears to be a lack of connection made between Occupy and the rank-and-file, but is the definitely down to a bureaucratic elite or just a hangover from an activist method of organising, which is what I see in London Occupy. (I'd guess one could argue "activism" has inherent vanguardism, but that's probably a different argument.)

Also, that write-up from a longshore worker, is that from an active Bay area IWW member?

http://socialistworker.org/2012/01/19/the-solidarity-we-need

what do folks think of this article by ISO...seems like they are siding with the bureacracy to me.

I've started reading the pieces. The BOC piece is long and covers lots
of stuff, but, seems somewhat interesting, just long.

Hard to comment on some of the events surrounding the meeting, etc
and it's always good to get someone on the ground to comment on
those aspects.

Briefly, I think you're starting to see some of the contours and
contradictions within both the more radical OWS elements and the labor
movement. The narrow questions and conflicts arising over job control
and control of workers actions; labor bureaucracy, contract and other
legal aspects and direct attacks -- by the more radical OWS folks -- on
trade unionism and controlled militancy and vision are coming to play.

Some of the contradictions will continue to play out where local trade
unions, central labor bodies and so forth engage OWS ..... and seek to
exert its own stamp and vision on it. A perfect example of this is in
NY where there's substantial trade union engagement by the "progressive"
wing of the trade union movement.

What might be interesting is to see how some of the post-Seattle (1999),
growth of Jobs With Justice, younger comrades entering both the radical and
reformist union movements and how some of that stuff measures up to current situation.
To see if any lessons can be learned and to contrast two periods of contemporary
struggle. I suspect there are significantly different nuances and situations, but might be
of some value.

I need to finish both pieces to comment further.

From the Black Orchid site:

Thanks S, that makes for very interesting reading.

Thought this might be of interest, perhaps take cues from Quaderni Rossi (Red Notebooks) and Potere Operaio (Workers Power)?

A Constituent Power Greater Than its Parts: Occupy and Workers from the Port Shutdown to the Primaries

S, I see you took down the whole article, so I'm gonna quote the bit I thought was the most illuminating:

Yes, I took the article down because there's some personal questions raised to me off list.
I will not raise them here.

Chili, see PM.

Here is BOC responding directly to the ISO article.

This interesting. Have ILWU Local 21 made an official response to the "events" during the 6th January solidarity event and the resolution by Local 19?

I understand that I.S.O are an international Trotskyist grouping. Their article about the 6th January solidarity event is highly speculative, i.e. "if the letter from ILWU President had been read out, the gathering would have been more unified". Anyone know anymore about their role in the occupy movements?

As I just wrote a WSA comrade:

"Yes, the ILWU,is a very complicated. I'll come back to this. But I
think some form of "inside/out" strategy is best. How that would work,
not real sure if there are no organic ties with the rank-and-file.
Simply trashing the ILWU is not good enough. Because the ILWU ---- at
least port workers --- are somewhat key on the West Coast. Of course,
one doesn't want to get into taling like the ISO and other left groups
do.

What I'm curious about is the internal ILWU dynamic. One can suspect
there's lots of internal debates/dicussions and so forth. Of course
there's the whole legal concern, set-up and possible trap for the the
ILWU.

There's the "narrow" issue of job control (Local 21) and the more
broad and perspectives of Occupy and libertarian labor, for example.
Controlled trade union militancy versus Occupy direct action and so
forth.

Also, having a retired Local 10 member (Heyman) in a port with an
active Local (19), without any Local 19 participation raises an
eyebrow. So, what's that dynamic all about?

More later."

"Right quick.....

> One of the commenters in that thread suggested the problem was "an activist
> approach." An activist approach is different than a mass organizing or
> organizer's approach, which would have done the sorts of things that the
> IBU/IWW dual carder suggested.

Here's where I think the inherent conflicts between experianced workerists (-:))
and folks who may be highly political, direct action oriented but
little sense of the nuances that go into worker organizing...."

Nah the US ISO franchise was expelled by head office in London in 2001 because they didn't recruit enough from the anti-globalization movement. Still pretty much the same opportunist end of Trotskyism politics AFAIK.

Didn't Left Turn briefly get the U.S. franchise by feigning Anarchist and milking the anti-globalization movement?

But Left Turn broke with the UK SWP because the latter wanted them to become a party which Left Turn does not want to do. They tend to be more "social movement left" than "partyist left" in their approach.

I think the SWP that J.C. quotes is the American SWP, not the British one. The American SWP is an authoritarian cult that has almost disappeared.

Not to derail the conversation, as I think the issues/appraches are more important then the ISO.

This is essentially my understanding as well.

Here's some fun pieces on the ISO:

http://www.angelfire.com/journal/iso/isoist.htm
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/back/Wnext19/Swp.html
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/socialistvoice/ISOSWPPR61.html
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/socialistvoice/ISOPR51.html

"Socialism is working-class self-emancipation. Only mass struggles of the workers themselves can put an end to the capitalist system of oppression and exploitation.

"We support trade unions as essential to the fight for workers' economic and political rights. To make the unions fight for workers' interests, rank-and-file workers must organize themselves independent of the union officials."

And so write the ISO in their "Where We Stand" statement: http://socialistworker.org/where-we-stand

Of course, the rhetoric sounds nice. But, as the expression goes, the "proof of the pudding is in the eating." And, thus far, the pudding ain't so good and the eating even worse.

Years ago there was this really terrible pamphlet by former SDSer turned Maoist, Carl Davidson, "Left in form, right in Essence". While being a dogmatic piece of shit stalinist critique of Trotskyism, the title is so apropo for the ISO (and others).

They talk left, but follow a rightist policy. But, hey, so did Lenin. In his "State & Revolution" he preached a sorta libertarian perspective. Mainly to out manouver the anarchists and others who shared similar ideas. He then followed by this with his rightist "Left-wing Communism: An Inftile Disorder". So, I guess, the leninist lineage claims to hold some water.

Anyway, I suppose the ISO can argue that certain "progressive" unions are more membership run than others. Perhaps there's some minor merit to that. Yet when workers "organize themselves independent of the union officials" there seems to be a sort of freak out, as with the Seattle event and beyond.

ILWU reaches settlement in Longview labor dispute

A Longshore union says it has reached a temporary settlement to end a months-long labor dispute at the Port of Longview.

By MIKE BAKER

Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. —

A Longshore union says it has reached a temporary settlement to end a months-long labor dispute at the Port of Longview.

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union and the company, EGT, did not immediately disclose details of the agreement Monday. The ILWU has been aggressively protesting the company since last year, when EGT decided to use a contractor that staffed a new grain terminal with workers from a different union.

Union protesters blocked trains and repeatedly faced arrest despite the warnings of a federal judge. The judge has fined the union more than $300,000 for the tactics.

ILWU President Robert McEllrath said in a statement Monday that the agreement is a win for the union, the company and the Longview community. He says they are looking forward to developing a positive working relationship with EGT.

From: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017313951_apwaunionclash.html

You betcha ..... let's see what sort of "partnership" arrangement was reached.

Anyway, I would really like to engage on the broader question of Occupy and labor.

At last Friday's all-day anti-bank activist-fest in San Francisco, some Occupy comrades did "occupy" the Itochu office in the city:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/01/21/18705206.php

Which seemed like a pretty good action, especially since several rank-and-file ILWU local 10 members were part of organizing it.

It was kind of badly handled in Seattle... I couldn't participate that much (although I was at the port shutdown and the disrupted meeting) because many of the key meetings were during working hours, besides I was a bit fed up with occupy. I still haven't formed a clear opinion - it seems like some ILWU members here had some legitimate complaints about how Occupy handled things but it's hard to separate that from the confusing internal politics, leftist bureaucratic ambitions and blind loyalty to the union, amongst other things. On the Occupy side, there are the overblown claims about being a new form of unionism that just don't have any real backing (yet?)

Cat just brought this to my attention.....

"ILWU officials shouldn't get a pass"
http://socialistworker.org/2012/01/23/ilwu-officials-shouldnt-get-a-pass

Cat:
> This person, a bay area member, doesn't really overtly disagree with the
> line in the previous piece, but wants to be more critical of the action of
> the union leaders, while arguing for building rank and file pressure inside
> the unions.

Syndicalist:

I agree with this, but from our perspective (of course):

"This organizing is very new and is going to be tricky and
challenging. Around the December 12 port action in Oakland, some
elements of organized labor tried to stop the action, while other
union members, including ILWU members and Teamsters, played a
significant role in making the action successful."