|
|
|
Unions Demand End to Occupation
On June 22 the national convention of the Service Employees International Union, with 1.7 million members the U.S.'s largest, voted unanimously to oppose the occupation of Iraq. A few days later the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, another of the AFL-CIO's largest unions, and the California Labor Federation, representing one-sixth of all U.S. union members also passed antiwar resolutions. The SEIU resolution called for "a just foreign policy based on international law and global justice ... an end to the U.S. Occupation of Iraq, redirecting the nation's resources from inflated military spending to meeting the needs of working families ... supporting our troops and their families by bringing our troops home safely ... protecting workers rights, civil rights, civil liberties and the rights of immigrants ... and solidarity with workers around the world. Labor journalist David Bacon talked with SEIU Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina about the resolution on July 30. Q: Why did SEIU members support the resolution so strongly?Workers are extremely concerned about our foreign policy. Their kids are being sent to fight and die, especially the children of immigrants. We need to deal with this issue. Our members were especially concerned about the increasing isolation of the U.S. They want the U.S. to be seen as a country based on democratic values, and worry that it's being seen now as a bully. Some delegates spoke out and said this was a war for oil, not for democracy. Q: Did the resolution cause much discussion?Our union went through a thorough debate on the war before the resolution came up, including discussion in local unions. Our members are a cross section of America--blue collar workers, professionals in hospitals, janitors. Many of them have children or relatives in Iraq, and felt that we had to support them. But the more the discussion went on, the more people said they felt misled, that they were being made patsies. It was very clear they felt this was the wrong war, being fought for the wrong reasons. Q: Did they feel the war is affecting people here in the U.S. then?The war is draining resources needed at home, leaving a huge deficit and leading to the loss of jobs in the public sector. They're very aware that the war doesn't benefit them. Q: What about the national AFL-CIO--do you expect it to take a position against the war?The AFL is a collection of international unions, and what it does depends on its constituents. The AFL has been very critical of Bush, and President Sweeney condemned Bush's unilateral action without U.N. support before the war started. As more unions speak out, it will create the consensus necessary for the AFL itself to take a position. If the momentum keeps up, I'm sure it will happen, and I hope before the election. Q: If Kerry is elected, do you think he'll pull U.S. troops out?It's wrong to think that speaking out on the war is the kiss of death in November. The American people will expect him to get us out, and they will hold him to it too. After all, it's their children coming home in body bags. He says he has a plan, and we have to hold him to it. The Iraqi people just want to have their country back. It's time to bring the troops home. David Bacon, author of the newly published The Children of NAFTA, is a labor activist, journalist and photographer in the San Francisco Bay Area. |
|
|
War Times/Tiempo de Guerras is a fiscally sponsored project of the |
