Sunday, June 16, 2024

Five Takeaways from the Recent Elections in Ireland



SATURDAY 15 JUNE 2024,  BY DIARMUID FLOOD, PAUL MURPHY
For the second election in a row, dramatic political changes took place in the course of the local and European elections in the South of Ireland. Sinn Féin started the year polling around 30% and yet ended up with less than 12% nationally in the local Elections. Independents and Others started the year with around 15%, but won close to 25% on June 6th. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael both hit 23%, coming from the high teens and around 20% respectively. In many ways, these appear to be the opposite political trends to what we saw in the General Election of 2020. Back then, Sinn Féin grew dramatically as hope for an end to 100 years of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael rule propelled them to be the biggest party in vote share or the first time ever. Volatility is clearly in the air

However, what we saw in the five weeks of the election campaign did not come from nowhere. The election catalysed and accelerated existing processes. In the absence of major progressive social struggles, with the exception of the Palestine solidarity movement, the political terrain has undoubtedly shifted rightwards. Ireland has caught up with most of the rest of Europe and the Global North, with the emergence of a reactionary social movement in opposition to asylum seekers and the growth of a racist, climate denialist, anti-LGBTQ, and sexist far-right.

Both have fed off the failure of the government to address the housing crisis and the failure of the left to build a mass housing movement. All that has happened in a country that is getting wealthier and wealthier but where precious little is “trickling down” to working class people hammered by the rising cost of living. These are precisely the conditions that breed anger and resentment - which the far right has consciously worked to direct downwards to refugees and other oppressed groups rather than upwards to landlords, bosses, and the government.

Sinn Féin has paid a heavy price for both its attempt to position itself as a responsible party ready for capitalist governance and its major blunders on migration. Meanwhile the so-called ‘political centre’ has displayed a cynical willingness to weaponise migration to bolster its own position, regardless of the legitimisation of the arguments of the far-right. In light of this, the modest gains made by the socialist left on local councils in these difficult circumstances is a bright spot.

GOVERNMENT PARTIES SUCCESSFULLY PLAYED THE IMMIGRATION CARD

In a reversal of fortune, the main two government parties Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael stabilised their support. Even though their respective vote shares are down by 4% and 2% respectively since 2019, and they lost 41 Council seats between them in their worst ever local election, they are eager to portray this election as a victory. Their representatives, boosted by the media, have run a celebration lap, proclaiming that ‘the centre is holding’. Importantly for them, they are now trending positively and will be licking their lips looking at Sinn Féin’s results. Rumours are starting to spread that the emboldened coalition may look to capitalise on this situation and call a General Election in November.

This moderate turnaround can largely be attributed to the government’s successful use of the manufactured panic around immigration. While directly responsible for the record breaking levels of homelessness and the disgraceful conditions migrants and refugees have found themselves in, many establishment politicians have at the same time postured about immigration concerns.

The two months before the election saw a new measure of performative cruelty announced almost every week. Cuts were made to accommodation and supports for Ukrainian refugees (overwhelmingly women and children). Means tests for asylum seekers (which would cost more money to implement than they would save) were announced. Men seeking asylum were left homeless on the streets as a policy choice was made to deny them accommodation. Repeatedly the government then destroyed their tents and closed off areas of Dublin City beside the canal to prevent them from coming back. All of this was designed to centre the issue of migration while at the same time posing the government as the most hardline in terms of response.

Cynically, while themselves centring the issue of migration, they have also sought to capitalise on fear of the far right by continuing to present themselves as progressive opponents of the ‘barbarians at the gates’ of both far right and far left. Some portion of their recovery can be put down to people voting for what they perceive as stability. In classic ‘divide and conquer’ terms the government has shifted the blame for their own failures onto the most marginalised in society.

SINN FÉIN HAS PAID THE PRICE FOR MOVING TO THE RIGHT

The most striking outcome of this election has been the collapse of Sinn Féin’s vote to under 12%. This is in stark contrast to the polls, which had them in the mid-30s from 2022 when it seemed likely they would cruise into councils and ultimately government. Instead of building on the anti-establishment mood which catapulted them to the top of the polls, Sinn Féin have moved to establish themselves as a ‘safe’ replacement for Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. Leading party reps have reassured big business, investors, and vulture funds that Sinn Féin ‘won’t go after them’ and that they have ‘nothing to fear’. They initially resisted the call for the Israeli ambassador to be expelled from Ireland and then shook the hand of Joe Biden in the White House, despite his support for the genocide of Palestinians.

The rise of racist ideas and fear of asylum seekers presented Sinn Féin with an undoubted challenge. They were consciously and effectively targeted by a far-right smear campaign on social media, intent on posing them as ‘traitors to Ireland’. No matter what they did, they likely would have lost some support. However, how they responded led to a deepening collapse of their vote as the election went on.

When the government consciously moved to make migration the central issue of the campaign, through their repeated implementation of new policies of cruelty that would not improve the lives of anybody (Irish or not), Sinn Féin should have stood against it. They should have pointed back to the government’s responsibility for all of the crises facing working class people and rejected their divide and rule tactics. They would have undoubtedly lost some support, but by holding the line they could have maintained their focus on the government and fought the election on the grounds of housing, health, and the cost of living.

Instead, they welcomed each and every new measure of performative cruelty. Not only that, each time they promised that Sinn Féin would go even further - seeking to appear even harder against asylum seekers than the government. In line with the speeches of their TDs, their election material prominently featured a section highlighting their ‘opposition to open borders’. In some instances they went further - Martin Browne, Sinn Féin TD for Tipperary, addressed an anti-migrant protest in Roscrea.

This was not only morally and politically wrong, it was a strategic disaster. It not only meant that migration became a key issue in the election, but that Sinn Féin could be portrayed and understood as ‘turncoats’ and ‘flip-floppers’. For those that viewed opposition to immigration as a key issue, they would not trust Sinn Fein in any case because of the party’s relatively proud history of opposition to racism. Its acceptance of immigration as a major problem simply accelerated the ebbing of some of its support towards independents and others who were putting forward an anti-immigration viewpoint . It also resulted in Sinn Féin losing some support from progressive people who were appalled at their new positioning.

They hoped that the mere mention of ‘change’ would allow them to sail into government. The reality is that Sinn Féin’s failure to mobilise their supporters for this change or to even outline what an alternative to FF-FG would look like has squandered their momentum and left them in a blind alley. The party failed to build on the anti-establishment energy that emerged in 2020 and is now paying the price for it.

But it’s not too late. Sinn Féin still maintains a strong base of support in communities across the country. If Sinn Féin, in combination with the trade union movement, put conscious effort into building a movement for housing and against the government they would increase the chance of reigniting the anti-establishment mood of 2020. Of course many of their more craven representatives will be calling for the party to take a further step to the right.

THE FAR-RIGHT HAS TAKEN A CONCERNING STEP FORWARD

In the aftermath of the election, there has been much media commentary suggesting that the far-right has not made a significant breakthrough. However, while they may not have achieved their own bloated expectations, they have taken a major step forward. In the European Elections across the country, 91,000 people (or 5%) cast their first preference vote for a candidate of the far-right, while an additional 196,000 (11%) voted for populist right candidates (including Aontú and Independent Ireland). The same sort of results are seen in local elections across the country. That is a remarkable breakthrough for political forces which were previously almost non-existent in Ireland.

In the run up to the election, and after months of far-right agitation and a simultaneous media circus, ‘immigration’ polled as the second highest concern among voters in multiple samples, trailing behind ‘housing’. If you canvassed enough doors during the election you were sure to be asked about immigration at least a handful of times. Sometimes as a question of what all the fuss was about and more often as a concern. It is only thanks to the far-right’s own fractured nature and incompetence, with multiple far-right candidates competing in various local election wards, that they have not turned those votes into more seats.

In total those parties and independents which can be considered ‘far-right’ took five seats. This breaks down to one seat for the Irish Freedom Party (IFP) in Palmerstown-Fonthill, one seat for the outrightly fascist National Party (NP) in Blanchardstown-Mulhuddart, and one seat each for anti-immigration campaigners Malachy Steenson in Dublin North Inner City, Gavin Pepper in Ballymun-Finglas, and Tom McDonnell in Kildare. In contrast with these parties, the more amorphous and right-populist ‘Independent Ireland’ fared significantly better, securing 23 seats and an MEP position. Their European election candidate for Midlands North West, Ciarán Mullooly, was elected on the final count beating the Sinn Féin candidate Michelle Gildernew. Their other MEP candidate for Dublin, Niall Boylan, also polled concerningly well but narrowly missed out in the final stages. Independent Ireland entered the election with thirteen councillors and finished with twenty three. This represents 40% of the total number of candidates they ran. While Independent Ireland is less politically coherent than the forces to their right, the party’s success is concerning. In contrast to this, Aontú slightly underperformed expectations, ending up with only eight seats, perhaps due to not dog whistling quite loudly enough.

Equally concerning are the many thousands of votes received by many far right candidates and individuals who failed to get elected. In many scenarios far right candidates were close to winning seats and in a handful of cases this was despite the fact that there were multiple far right candidates running in the same ward. Most strikingly, candidates from the Hitler-quoting National Party got hundreds of first preference votes in multiple different wards. In the European Elections Derek Blighe, leader of ‘Ireland First’, secured 25,000 first preference votes representing 3.6% of the vote in Ireland South. When combined with the three other far right candidates their collective vote share was 8%. In Midlands North West, the Independent Ireland candidate Ciarán Mullooly received nearly 58,000 first preference votes, securing 8.4%. Again this was achieved with five other far right candidates on the ballot.

While the far right did not make the gains they would have hoped for, they are now discussing the need for greater collaboration and could present a more significant threat in the next elections. A clear takeaway is anti-racist and anti-fascist forces must get serious before they do.

THE SOCIALIST LEFT FOUND RELATIVE SUCCESS IN DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES

In the context of a rightwing social movement against immigration and a media-circus parroting the same narrative, it was an uphill battle for the socialist left, centrally People Before Profit (PBP) and Solidarity (electoral group of the Socialist Party - ISA), to gain from this election. However in key areas PBP has managed to make important gains picking up four extra council seats for a total of ten. Solidarity has made a return of three council seats, losing one overall. In total this will amount to thirteen seats for the collective grouping of People Before Profit-Solidarity.

PBP ran campaigns across the country calling to ‘evict Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael’ and to ‘put campaigners on the council’. Particular focus was given to the housing crisis with emphasis on the massive amount of derelict and vacant homes that have been neglected by establishment-dominated councils. It was pointed out that far from Ireland being ‘full’ there are more than enough houses lying empty. This messaging was consistently combined with anti-racist arguments. In the context of relatively low levels of class struggle nationally, local community campaigns for housing, amenities, and resources assumed an important role in boosting the profile of our candidates as proven fighters for working people. In Dublin South West, we had impactful campaigns to save the Tallaght Post Office, for funding to Kiltalown Park, and for zebra crossings in Kingswood. All of them played an important role in demonstrating the impact that PBP could have at a local level.

While there were important victories in Carlow, Sligo, and Cork, it should be noted that the vast majority of seats were won in Dublin. It remains a vital task for the socialist left to lay down roots in the other key urban areas as a stepping stone to becoming a truly national force. The experience in Dublin shows that where there is consistent community-based campaigning, we can carve out support for socialist ideas, and help to resist the rise of the far right in working-class areas. It should also be noted that across the country a number of left independents and other small left parties managed to retain seats. Unfortunately, in a loss for the anti-war and Palestine solidarity movements, Clare Daly lost her MEP seat after a vicious campaign in the media to portray her as ‘Putin’s puppet’.

In the context of a difficult period, this election can be considered a relative success for the socialist left. With manufactured panic around immigration, and the momentum behind the far right, these modest gains represent an important achievement. The many socialist and left candidates played a vital role in cutting across the immigration narrative with anti-establishment and anti-racist messaging. The collapse of the Sinn Féin vote may make it easier for our TD seats to be defended, but it is still undoubtedly the case that we will enter the next General Election in a broadly defensive posture. We need now to work to convince many of those who supported People Before Profit to join it and to build it as a significant eco-socialist force with roots in working class communities.

THERE IS A LOT MORE TO BE DONE

After weeks and months of campaigning it’s important for all those who have been active in campaigns to take a breather, reflect on the election itself, and prepare to continue building. However, we will not have long before another general election is upon us. Three things are vital:

We urgently need to mobilise people on the issue of housing, pointing people’s anger towards the corporate landlords, developers, and the government which allows them to grow rich off people’s misery. Pressure should be placed on Sinn Féin to drop their dead-end slide to the right and recommit to mobilising their supporters against the government. Together with the trade union movement, left parties, and grassroots housing activists, we should seek to organise a major protest before October’s budget seeking massive investment in social and genuinely affordable housing, rent controls that actually reduce rents, and a state construction company. This could serve to raise people’s sights again and give people hope.

The electoral breakthroughs of the far and populist right will have alarmed many. All anti-racist and anti-fascist forces now need to be organised in a real united front rooted in working class communities. A grassroots social media operation is needed to counter the lies and hatred spouted by the right’s outlets and redirect working class anger away from migrants and refugees.

PBP should champion a left alliance or a “vote left, transfer left” pact for the next elections. If a fundamental change of government is on offer, many more people can be mobilised to vote than in these local elections which saw the lowest turnout ever. In order for this not to lead to more betrayal and disappointment it must be based on a commitment not to go into government with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael (a commitment that unfortunately Sinn Féin and the Social Democrats refuse to give), agreement to oppose the scapegoating of asylum seekers for the failure of the government, as well as a combative programme of taking on the capitalist elite responsible for the crises in housing, health, and climate.

15 June 2024

This is a slightly enlarged version of the article in Rupture published on 14 June 2024.

P.S.

If you like this article or have found it useful, please consider donating towards the work of International Viewpoint. Simply follow this link: Donate then enter an amount of your choice. One-off donations are very welcome. But regular donations by standing order are also vital to our continuing functioning. See the last paragraph of this article for our bank account details and take out a standing order. Thanks.

Book Review: ‘Power Lines—Building a Labor-Climate Justice Movement’

This anthology gathers “spark stories from the front lines of the climate crises that can help organizers figure out how to bring workers and communities together to build ‘the movement and power we need to win a just transition’ that will benefit us all.”


June 16, 2024
Source: Convergence




A familiar scene played out in the city council chambers of Richmond, California on May 22, 2024. For the last 20 years, since members of the anti-Chevron Richmond Progressive Alliance (RPA) first got elected to the council, any measure before that body affecting the city’s largest employer and business tax payer has been hotly debated.

Local environmental justice organizations, like Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN) mobilize their working-class members to attend and sign up to speak during the time allotted for “public comment.”

To rebut the resulting complaints about pollution and arguments for stronger health and safety protection, the $290-billion company that operates Richmond’s massive 122-year-old refinery deploys its own defenders. They include refinery managers, public affairs people, leaders of non-profit groups funded by Chevron, and leaders of conservative Building Trades unions, which represent workers employed by contractors for the oil industry.

The latest battle lines have formed around a proposal to impose a new excise tax on fossil fuel products from a facility that generates, according to one RPA analysis, about $2 billion a year in profit for the company.
A refinery tax?

This Richmond Refinery Tax Act, proposed by two RPA leaders on the council, would generate an estimated $100 million a year for programs serving the city’s 110,000 residents. Chevron’s current annual tax bill is about $50 million, providing about 15% of Richmond’s total tax revenue. But the city currently faces a budget shortfall of $34 million in the next fiscal year.

Speakers for and against the measure packed the council chambers that Tuesday night in May. Among those in favor was Sandy Saeteurn, a Richmond resident and APEN member. She accused Chevron of “continuing to pollute our air, our environment, our health” and argued that the tax hike would “make sure they’re investing in our city, investing in our residents, and the future of our community.

Many other community speakers echoed her comments, but Chevron spokesperson Caitlin Powell countered them in a written statement. Powell called the refining tax “a hasty proposal, brought forward by one-sided interests,” that would hamper the company’s ability to “to create a better quality of life for Richmond residents.”

Organized labor spoke, per usual, with more than one voice. Harry Baker, representing Service Employees Local 1021, which has a Richmond city hall bargaining unit, told the council that “we strongly support the polluters pay initiative. It’s not just a plan. It’s a necessity.”

Timothy Jefferies, representing the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, weighed in—as the building trades unions invariably do—on the company’s side. “We’re not against clean air,” Jeffries explained. But he argued against any hasty action on the proposed ballot measure because voter approval of it might adversely affect refinery jobs and all the other economic benefits that Richmond “enjoys because of those jobs.”
Adversaries to allies

Richmond’s latest controversy involving Big Oil—and its local friends and foes—reveals the main political divide explored in the anthology Power Lines: Building a Labor-Climate Justice Movement(New Press, 2024). The collection began as a project of The Forge and was compiled by former Forge editor Lindsay Zafir, now academic director of Leadership for Democracy and Social Justice at CUNY, and Jeff Ordower, North America director for 350.org, It brings together more than a dozen case studies of environmental justice campaigns which have grappled with the challenge of enlisting labor allies and overcoming union objections to reducing fossil fuel extraction, transportation, refining, and use.

The editors call them “spark stories—from the front lines of the climate crises” that can help other organizers figure out how to bring workers and communities together to build “the movement and power we need to win a just transition” that will benefit us all.

Their contributors include “blue-green” coalition builders like Norman Rogers, second vice-president of United Steel Workers (USW) Local 675 in southern California, Jose Bravo, executive director of the Just Transition Alliance (JTA), which has been trying to bring union members and environmentalists together since 1997, and Tefere Gebre, former executive vice president of the AFL-CIO, who now works for Greenpeace,USA.

Other voices in the collection hail from North Bay Jobs With Justice, APEN, CBE, the Bay Area-based Climate Workers, the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, state-level or multi-state groups like Native Movement, Climate Justice Rhode Island, Good Jobs, Clean Air New Jersey, and the Center for Coalfield Justice, and the national networks such as the Green Workers Alliance, Labor Network for Sustainability.

Not all of these projects have survived the fickleness of foundation funders or the shifting winds of union politics. Brooke Anderson, a former organizer for the East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, spent five years nurturing Climate Workers, a cross-union, rank-and-file formation of mainly low-wage workers backed by the Movement Generation Justice & Ecology Project. Summing up the lessons of that experience, she describes how hospitality workers and port truckers “who had contributed the least to ecological erosion and had the least resources to shoulder a just transition were asked to sacrifice the most to make their industries more ‘sustainable.’”

In her chapter, Anderson recounts one victory of particular significance, locally and nationally (although it remains subject to litigation). This was the labor-community fight against a coal export terminal in Oakland. She writes:

“When it was proposed, many in labor deferred to the building trades, which supported the project. However, once unions with members in the path of the coal trains—often lower-wage, Black and Brown members—spoke out against the project, it put labor’s position back up for grabs. We eventually moved much of labor to oppose the terminal and the city of Oakland, followed suit, rejecting the proposal.”
Asian-American activism

In Power Lines, well-deserved attention is given to APEN, which has rallied Richmond residents against Chevron for three decades, from its base among Laotian refugees and other Asian-American immigrants. Ordower and Miya Yoshitani provide a useful overview of this organizational history; the book also features an interview with APEN co-director Vivian Yi Huang and Amee Raval, its research and policy director, conducted by Yoshitani, who was APEN’s long-time executive director

As noted by Ordower and Yoshitani, APEN has had some success building relationships with oil workers in Richmond who are direct employees of Chevron. Their USW Local 5 represents workers at several other refineries in Contra Costa and Solano Counties. In the last decade, it has struck two of them, including Chevron’s facility for ten weeks in 2022, the longest walkout there in 40 years. During each of these national or local contract fights, local environmental justice groups joined strike picket-linesand rallies, with Greenpeace even deploying several protest boats around Chevron’s mile-long pier on the Richmond shoreline.

After the dispute ended, Local 5 vice-president B. K. White and four co-workers were fired, in retaliation for their strike activity and White’s aggressive public advocacy for refinery safety measures. While negotiating a settlement of his discharge case, White decided to retire from Chevron, after 29 years. He took a new job as public policy director for Richmond Mayor Eduardo Martinez, the longtime Chevron critic now pushing for a “polluters’ tax.” According to the mayor’s chief of staff, Shiva Mishek, White’s role in the mayor’s office is “to help us lead ‘just transition’ work and support union labor and workforce development in Richmond.”
An adversarial relationship

As Ordower and Yoshitani report, environmental justice groups like APEN have had “a more adversarial relationship” with conservative craft unions which, in 2015, even blocked a Contra Costa County Labor Council resolution in support of Local 5 strikers at a refinery in Martinez, CA. They are affiliated with the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California (SBCTCC), which speaks for 500,000 workers. Its affiliated unions often back management positions on refinery expansion or taxation, undercut campaigns for workplace safety led by the USW, and resist stronger environmental protection for “frontline” communities.

The longstanding rift between the two wings of refinery labor—and the fifth column role played by the trades–is recounted in my book, Refinery Town: Big Oil, Big Money, and the Remaking of an American City. It was on dramatic display several years ago when the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the powerful industry lobbying group funded by oil and gas companies, held its annual policy and strategy meeting at a swank beachfront resort in Orange County. The two-day event featured a keynote speech by then State Building Trades Council leader Robbie Hunter, president of Iron Workers Local 433 in Los Angeles.

As a fellow presenter at the conference (on a panel about the concerns of refinery neighbors), I saw Hunter get a standing ovation for his lunch-time address to several hundred oil industry managers and contractors, lobbyists from Washington and Sacramento, and friends in the state legislature. The labor leader spent nearly an hour praising Big Oil and ranting about the “enviros and NIMBYs and all the usual groups that just say ‘No’ to everything” that leads to more hiring of building trades members to do refinery maintenance and modernization work.

According to Hunter, Richmond was ground zero for such obstructionism because its “city council got taken over by people who didn’t reflect the community.” As a result of this political shift, he reported, Chevron is now constantly assailed by “groups with an activist agenda” who are “looking for any excuse to shut down these plants.” He pledged that his organization would continue to work with Chevron so it remains “the neighbor the city wants.” (For its part, WSPA has joined the opposition to Richmond’s proposed ballot measure, arguing that “any additional local taxes or regulatory programs could make [Chevron] operations more challenging and expensive, which could lead to higher costs at the pump for all.”)
An oil worker’s concerns

Norm Rogers is another southern California union official who has had to address rank-and-file concerns about the impact of refinery shut-downs—but in a different way than Hunter. As he explains in a chapter called “The Dream and the Nightmare,” 4,000-member USW Local 675 “is very much tied to its history as a local under the former Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers” that was aligned with the late Tony Mazzocchi, a pioneering labor environmentalist and job safety advocate who served as national secretary-treasurer and legislative director of the OCAW.

Local 675 joined a union coalition called California Labor for Climate jobs which, according to Rogers, “successfully lobbied the state for a $40 million fund for displaced oil and gas workers a $20 million fund for displaced extraction workers.” At Marathon Oil, a Local 675 employer, an on-going “conversion to renewable diesel has already resulted in significant job losses…which is especially challenging for older workers who are too close to retirement for retraining.”

The funding obtained from the state is designed to support laid off workers, where possible, through retraining programs, plus early retirement and wage replacement, and other services. Yet, as Rogers suggests, this is little more than a pilot project in light of California’s plan to reduce crude oil production to 166,000 barrels a day by 2045.

“Currently, my refinery alone produces 360,000 barrels a day,” Rogers reports. “Refineries across the state produce more than one million barrels a day. The plan that’s currently in place doesn’t fully address how we could reduce production so dramatically or what the consequences of doing so would be—including loss of union jobs.”

By grappling with realities like this, Power Lines helps deepen the debate about how to unite and fight for a “Green New Deal”—or any better deal than the status quo, which will leave millions of workers at risk in the hottest summer ever in the U.S. As Power Lines contributor Todd Vachon points out in a similar book, Clean Air and Good Jobs: US Labor and the Struggle for Climate Justice (Temple University Press, 2023), creating “a pro-worker clean energy economy” requires turning “just transition” rhetoric into reality, on a much larger scale. If most fossil fuel workers believe they will end up on the trash heap—like underground coal miners or rust belt factory workers before them—business unionists will have little trouble rallying them, in Donald Trump fashion, based on that fear.

Rather than becoming allies in the fight for a stronger social safety net for displaced workers and a sustainable future for all of us, they will, in a fashion very familiar in Richmond, be mobilized by their own unions and employers to protect the power and profits of corporate America.

Power Lines: Building a Labor-Climate Justice Movement, edited by Jeff Ordower and Lindsay Zafir (The New Press, 2024), 217 pp.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
DONATE


Steve Early

Steve Early has worked as a journalist, lawyer, labor organizer, or union representative since 1972. For nearly three decades, Early was a Boston-based national staff member of the Communications Workers of America who assisted organizing, bargaining and strikes in both the private and public sector. Early's free-lance writing about labor relations and workplace issues has appeared in The Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, The Nation, The Progressive, and many other publications. Early's latest book is called Our Veterans: Winners, Losers, Friends and Enemies on the New Terrain of Veterans Affairs (Duke University Press, 2022). He is also the author of Refinery Town: Big Oil, Big Money, and the Remaking of An American City (Beacon Press, 2018); Save Our Unions: Dispatches from a Movement in Distress (Monthly Review Press, 2013); The Civil Wars in U.S. Labor: Birth of a New Workers’ Movement or Death Throes of the Old? (Haymarket Books, 2011); and Embedded With Organized Labor: Journalistic Reflections on the Class War at Home (Monthly Review Press, 2009). Early is a member of the NewsGuild/CWA, the Richmond Progressive Alliance (in his new home town, Richmond, CA.) East Bay DSA, Solidarity, and the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. He is a current or past editorial advisory board member of New Labor Forum, Working USA, Labor Notes, and Social Policy. He can be reached at Lsupport@aol.com and via steveearly.org or ourvetsbook.com.

Beware of Teamsters Bearing Gifts

 

JUNE 14, 2024
Facebook

Photo by Joe Piette – CC BY-SA 2.0

Except for a handful of insiders in the Teamsters and the Amazon Labor Union (ALU), few of us were aware that negotiations were being held to affiliate the ALU with Teamsters, until the recent announcement. If anything, most of us stopped paying attention to the ALU, which two years ago had an important breakthrough in winning a union election at Amazon’s JFK8 fulfillment center in Staten Island. Soon afterwards, the ALU was inundated with calls from fifty Amazon workplaces across the country. A spark had been struck, but would it catch fire?

Disappointingly, the initial success was followed by a string of defeats, and ALU supporters began pushing for change. Some of us were aware that there was a “reform movement” in the ALU that was demanding a democratic structure and challenging the leadership of its president, Chris Smalls, who became an international celebrity. When Smalls incorporated the ALU in NY, it was more like a NGO rather than a recognizable union. The ALU was also similar to an NGO in that it was also heavily dependent on outside contributions, not from a dues base of a membership.

ALU will be voting on affiliation with the Teamsters on June 15 and 16, and it is likely to pass, especially given that the reformers in the ALU were part of the negotiations with the Teamsters and have endorsed the agreement. The Teamsters also helped fix the vote by unilaterally announcing that the ALU had already affiliated with a social and mainstream media blitz. I would guess that affiliation will pass overwhelmingly, since no one in the ALU has put forward a fundamentally different strategy for moving it forward, rather than affiliating with the Teamsters.

Smalls has proved to be so unpopular with the ALU membership that he announced last December that he would not be running for president. On June 15 and 16, ALU members are voting for affiliation with the Teamsters, while the election of a new leadership this summer has been ordered by the courts. I don’t have a position on whether the ALU should affiliate or not, but I would be suspicious of Teamsters bearing gifts.

Talking to several people over the last week, I’ve been trying to get a handle on some of the motivations for ALU reformers embracing the Teamsters, and what they expect will change for them.

Myth and Reality

Myths about the Teamsters being a “powerful” union persist to this very day. This was well on display during last year’s UPS contract campaign with widespread media coverage that amplified this image, including much of the U.S. Left that repeated continually that we were on the eve of the biggest strike in modern U.S. history. This, of course, did not occur leading to the frustration and demoralization of the hundreds of young radicals—many identified with the Democratic Socialists of America, DSA—who went out and got jobs on some of the worst shifts at UPS to be part of this transformative campaign.

Let’s be clear that the Teamster leadership of General President Sean O’Brien and General Secretary-Treasurer Fred Zuckerman chose a social media campaign, despite their bloviating rhetoric. And, since the beginning of the year, UPS has ravaged its workforce by closing over 200 shifts and buildings across the country, with the union acting like little more than a bystander. Revealingly, during the UPS contract campaign, Yellow Freight, one of the oldest freight companies represented by the Teamsters, went bankrupt where 20,000 union jobs disappeared without a fight from the union.

The hollowness of the Teamsters at UPS and Yellow Freight was clearly revealed when Shawn Fain, the President of the UAW, called strikes at General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis last fall. In sharp contrast to the bloviating from the Teamsters, the UAW actually struck the auto companies formerly known as the Big Three. And, while legitimate criticisms can be made of the conduct of the strikes and their final settlements, I think there is little doubt that real strikes are better than bloviating and empty posturing.

Some ALU reformers and supporters argue that for the ALU to succeed at Amazon it needs a “big gun” to back it up. While you can understand the allure of being affiliated to a larger union after a series of defeats, is this a solution to the existential crisis of ALU? Even recent history at Amazon doesn’t suggest this is a silver bullet solution. Way back in April 2021, when the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union (RWDSU), affiliated with the mammoth UFCW, lost two to one in a union election at Amazon in Bessemer, Alabama, despite having a successful record of organizing in the South.

Part of the motivation for the Teamsters in wanting the shell of the ALU, I can’t help but think, is to deepen their claim on Amazon while doing little work to earn it. The 2021 Teamster convention, the last one presided over by James P. Hoffa passed a series of resolutions on Amazon, including creating an Amazon department and plans for a campaign directed at Amazon drivers across the country.

So far, all the Teamsters have to show for their paltry efforts is a contract at Battle Tested Strategies (BTS), a former Amazon contractor, in Palmdale, California, with a resulting recognition “strike” and “roving pickets” at Amazon facilities that few actual Amazon workers participate in. It appears that the Teamsters are using the media strategy that they deployed in the UPS contract campaign. But, the larger point is that the illusive “big gun” is not ultimately about affiliating with a larger union, but collectively organizing workers for militant action to wrest a contract from the employer.

Chris Smalls initially had an inkling of this. He dismissed affiliating with Teamsters soon after the victory on Staten Island, he told the Guardian: “If established unions had been effective, they would have unionized Amazon already. We have to think about 21st century-style unionizing.” He never elaborated on what he meant by this, but the Teamsters haven’t changed.