Subject: [SocialistWorker.org] Why we called for a port shutdown
-----
View original article here:
http://socialistworker.org/2011/12/07/why-we-want-a-port-shutdown
Comment: Scott Johnson
======== WHY WE CALLED FOR A PORT SHUTDOWN ===================================
December 7, 2011
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Scott Johnson, an Oakland activist and supporter of Occupy Oakland and the
December 12 West Coast Port Shutdown, debunks the claim that the movement is
trying to impose an action on unwilling longshore workers. His views,
expressed in an article for the /Occupied Oakland Tribune/ [1], are his own,
and not those of the Occupy Oakland General Assembly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ON DECEMBER 5, Cal Winslow wrote a lengthy article for CounterPunch.org [2]
criticizing Occupy Oakland and the call for a December 12 West Coast Port
Shutdown.
While he is clearly interested in building mass labor action and is a
supporter of the Occupy movement, his critique is wrong-headed and littered
with factual errors. He appears to be quite well-informed about the European
labor movement, and yet is at a loss for accurate details regarding actions
organized just miles away from his workplace at UC Berkeley.
To begin with, the December 12 action was not called as a "general strike" by
Occupy Oakland, as Winslow insists. Had he taken the time to realize this, he
may have saved a substantial amount of time in criticizing it as such.
Additionally, the march that left Scott Olsen seriously injured occurred on
October 25, not September 27.
After misunderstanding these details, he continues by criticizing the
November 2 action, which /was/ called as a general strike. "[I]t is
well-known," writes Winslow, "at least within the labor movement, that,
routinely, from the fringe, the demand for a general strike is
raised--whatever the circumstances. It's almost always a one-size-fits-all
rallying cry. "
I initially approached the call for a general strike on November 2 with the
same skepticism, but the success of the event itself won me over. Academics
will debate for years whether the Oakland General Strike was "real" or not,
but it is clear that the action was the most successful event in the Occupy
movement thus far. Only a pedantic nit-picker could be so concerned about
whether slapping the "general strike" terminology onto the action was
appropriate at this point.
Winslow continues to criticize the action, insisting that, "truth be told
I've heard of not a single case of a worker /striking/ that day, walking off
the job in defiance of their employers, though to be sure many workers found
their ways to the docks."
In fact, 20 percent of Oakland teachers took a personal day on November 2
[3], a fact that Winslow conveniently ignores, along with the fact that
hundreds of students walked out of class and the day of action was endorsed
in various ways by the Alameda County Labor Council, the Oakland Educators
Association, the Berkeley Federation of Teachers, Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) Local 1021 and Carpenters Local 713.
Certainly, not everybody who participated did so by marching out of their
workplace and chanting "strike!" but I would hope that Winslow could live
with that. Everybody else did. Finally, the demonstration on November 2 did
not begin at 5 p.m. as Winslow states but at 9 a.m.--for those who took the
day off from work, anyway.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WINSLOW ALSO comments that Occupy Oakland "authorized the strike call [again,
it was not a strike call] 'unanimously' at its November 18 General Assembly,"
and continues, "I have to add here that I have been advised by reliable
sources that the Oakland General Assembly and the anarchists at its core
offer something much less than what is considered to be democratic."
On the one hand, this comment about anarchists is slanderous red-baiting, and
Winslow should know better. Anarchists, socialists and other radicals have
always played a significant role in the American labor movement, which
Winslow all but admits in his article.
On the other hand, I don't know how much more democratic you can get than 100
percent support. For my part, no sneaky anarchist coerced me into raising my
hand in support at the General Assembly, and I doubt that is the case for
anybody else. Winslow might have made the trek down to 14th and Broadway to
verify these things himself rather than discussing it with "reliable
sources," but his article is less reliable for not having done so.
What we do plan for December 12 is to organize community pickets at the ports
along the West Coast, in solidarity with ILWU workers in Longview fighting
against EGT and in solidarity with port truck drivers. The ILWU has not
endorsed this action, and they did not endorse the previous one, but there is
a long tradition of Bay Area activists setting up community pickets at the
Port of Oakland, including actions in recent years against the war in Iraq
and against an Israeli ship.
However, we are not working against the ILWU but in support of it, and while
it is true, as Winslow states, that "the emancipation of the working class
must be the act of the workers themselves," and action taken by the ILWU
itself at the ports would be tremendous, community action is also part of a
democratic impulse against inequality.
The Port of Oakland ought to belong to the people of Oakland, but instead,
the mass of wealth that is accumulated and distributed through it is left
largely in the hands of the 1 percent. Our action may not be a "strike," but
it will be a "blow" against the union-busting tactics of the 1 percent along
the West Coast. The African-American families who stood in front of their
homes in West Oakland and cheered us on as we marched to the Port of Oakland
on November 2 sure thought so last time, and I suspect the same will be true
next Monday.
The labor movement is historically weak, with unionization at an all-time
low. Mass workers' strikes in various industries would be a welcome
development, but in the meantime, rank-and-file members of the Teamsters,
SEIU, the Berkeley and Oakland teachers' unions and many non-union workers
are organizing for the West Coast Port Shutdown, as are at least 20 local
Occupy movements at 10 different port cities.
With the current state of the labor movement, many militant actions may occur
outside of union officialdom, but that does not make it the work of outside
agitators who have no interest in workers' democracy. In fact, many of us
hope our actions, which have the active support of many rank-and-file union
members, are a precursor toward a stronger union movement.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TO PARAPHRASE Winslow's favorite philosopher, historians have merely
interpreted the labor movement in various ways; the point, however, is to
change it. The path to achieving this is not always obvious, but labor
activists all over the West Coast believe our action is a significant next
step for both Occupy and labor.
Winslow's comment that we should "do this in /coordination /with the ILWU, or
do it with the longshoremen themselves," and that our action "suggests the
opposite of democracy" are irresponsible, showing a lack of understanding of
the nature of the action itself. This is not an action against the ILWU--any
more than the protests to shut down the WTO in Seattle in 1999 were against
janitors and caterers working at the conference--but an action against the
ports.
I assure you that we are not destroying workers' democracy--in fact,
Occupiers have already reached out to port workers about the upcoming action
and found a very positive response. You can even watch a video of ILWU Local
21 President Dan Coffman [4] telling Occupy Oakland, "You cannot believe what
you people did [on November 2] for the inspiration of my union members who
have been on the picket line for six months."
It is too bad that Cal Winslow did not come down to Oscar Grant Plaza to talk
to us about the December 12 action. Unfortunately, he dismisses our action at
precisely the time when the Port of Oakland has launched a campaign against
it [5]. Had he sought us out before writing his article, I suspect he would
have had a different appreciation for the relevance and nature of the West
Coast Port Shutdown.
/First published at the Occupied Oakland Tribune [6]/.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Published by the International Socialist Organization. Material on this Web
site is licensed by SocialistWorker.org, under a Creative Commons (by-nc-nd
3.0) license, except for articles that are republished with permission.
Readers are welcome to share and use material belonging to this site for
non-commercial purposes, as long as they are attributed to the author and
SocialistWorker.org.
[1] http://occupiedoaktrib.org/2011/12/06/a-reply-to-cal-winslow-on-the-west-coast-port-shut-down/
[2] http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/05/the-case-of-occupy-and-the-longshoremen%E2%80%99s-union/
[3] http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/education&id=8416665
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGqncu3wlEI
[5] http://portofoakland.com/keeptheportopen/
[6] http://occupiedoaktrib.org/2011/12/06/a-reply-to-cal-winslow-on-the-west-coast-port-shut-down/
