BY SUE
BOLTON
Over the weekend of February 14-16, millions of people protested
against Washington's impending war on Iraq. The huge size of the anti-war
protests, and the fact that the big majority of people around the world
are opposed to Washington's unilateral drive to conquer Iraq have given
encouragement to workers to refuse to cooperate with the US death machine.
Unionised railway workers in Italy have refused to drive trains carrying
war supplies from US bases to Italian ports, so these trains have instead
been driven by Italian military engineers.
This then led to attempts to blockade railway lines to stop these trains
from reaching the ports. Members and officials from the General Confederation
of Italian Workers (CGIL) participated in these blockades and the railworkers'
union provided anti-war activists with detailed information on train movements.
Italian dockworkers also committed themselves to the campaign of preventing
the movement of US military cargo by refusing to handle it.
On March 4, Funzione Pubblica CGIL, the public sector union affiliated
to the CGIL, announced that it had called a general strike for March 15
so that 
millions
of public sector workers can attend a national anti-war demonstration called
by CGIL on that day in Milan.
At its March 6-7 meeting in Athens, the executive committee of the European
Confederation of Trade Unions, which represents 60 million unionists, issued
a call for work stoppages across in Europe at midday on March 14.
The British transport unions are pushing for a special congress of the
Trade Union Congress to be called to decide on industrial action, with
the date of such a congress to be before war is declared, if possible.
At a press conference prior to the two-million-strong anti-war mobilisation
in London on February 15, the leaders of five major unions threatened widespread
industrial unrest if Britain goes to war against Iraq.
In Australia, where most state-based and city-based labour councils
are involved in the anti-war coalitions, the best thing unions could do
is to follow the example of the of the Italian unions by calling for a
day of nation-wide work stoppages in conjunction with anti-war rallies.
At Melbourne's 220,000-strong anti-war mobilisation on February 14,
a large percentage of the protesters were workers who had taken sickies,
a day of annual leave or swapped shifts in order to get to the Friday afternoon
demonstration.
If the unions had called for work stoppages to allow their members to
attend the anti-war rally then the protest could well have equalled the
half-million turnout at the following Sunday's anti-war protest in Sydney.
If the ACTU were to organise a general strike in conjunction with a
national day of anti-war rallies around Australia before the war begins,
it might put enough pressure on the Howard government to force it to withdraw
Australia's 2000 troops from the Persian Gulf.
The Western Australian, Victorian and NSW branches of the Construction,
Forestry, Mining and Energy Union construction division and the National
Tertiary Education Industry Union have called on their members to stop
work to attend emergency demonstrations as soon as the war begins.
Some unions affiliated to the Victorian Trades Hall Council and the
Geelong Trades and Labor Council have decided to call on workers to stop
work to join the VTHC- and GTLC-called lunchtime rallies on the day after
the war begins.
With the current level of opposition to the threatened war against Iraq,
industrial bans on the federal government, the armed forces, and the US
embassy and consulates should be a subject of discussion for the union
movement.
On March 2, media magnate Rupert Murdoch's Sunday papers around Australia
tried to pre-empt such a debate by trying to intimidate unions into not
considering industrial bans the transportation of ammunition and other
war materiel for Australian troops in the Gulf. Murdoch's Sunday Herald
Sun in Melbourne carried the screaming headline “Deserted — Unions
target troops”.
The accompanying article and an editorial were textbook examples of
how the corporate media seek to manipulate public opinion and the political
agenda.
Despite a complete lack of facts to back up their claims, SHS
journalists David Wilson and Ian Haberfield claimed that “Key unions are
drawing up plans to hit Australia's war effort in Iraq with industrial
action” and that the “move is set to be endorsed by the [Victorian] Trades
Hall Council and the ACTU at a meeting this month”.
The next day, ACTU president Sharan Burrow and VHTC secretary Leigh
Hubbard denied the allegations. Burrow was quoted in the March 3 Melbourne
Age as saying: “We support the troops but we oppose the war... But
at no time would we oppose food and materials being sent to support the
troops.” Burrow didn't indicate whether the “materials” which the ACTU
supports being sent to Australian troops includes munitions.
A flurry of press releases echoing the ACTU position were released on
March 3 by Queensland Council of Unions general secretary Grace Grace,
Australian Manufacturing Workers Union Queensland branch secretary Dave
Harrison and Victorian AMWU administrator Dave Oliver.
Harrison's press statement said that the AMWU's opposition to a US-led
attack on Iraq “does not extend to depriving Australian service men and
women of their supplies”. He claimed that it did not “serve any purpose
to try and deprive them of the means to do their job”. Harrison went on
to affirm that “AMWU members, especially those directly involved in defence,
will continue to do their jobs, and if part of that job involves supporting
troops in Iraq, then that is what they will do.”
Oliver's press statement made similar points.
Presumably, Harrison would not support the sort of action being taken
by workers in Britain and Italy in refusing to transport armaments to assist
the US invasion of Iraq.
Hubbard told Green Left Weekly that the March 2 SHS article
had quoted him out of context. In the VTHC's March 3 press release which
repudiated the SHS article, Hubbard stated: “I indicated to the
journalist that even if any industrial action was contemplated, it would
be likely to be limited and symbolic in nature. In the past on issues like
East Timor or South Africa, the union movement has targeted things like
embassies and consulates, airline flights and government departments.”
Given the level of unpopularity of the Howard government's support for
the US-led war against Iraq, if the union movement was to engage in such
targeted bans in opposition to the war against Iraq, it would gain in stature
in the eyes of the majority of the Australian population and could greatly
increase the pressure on the government to bring the troops home.
However, one problem which Hubbard pointed out in an interview with
GLW on February 25 is that Australia isn't like Britain, where there
are huge amounts of munitions being moved. He indicated that if the union
movement decided on any bans, they would be quite small actions and more
symbolic in nature such as bans around government administration or mail.
However, if the Australian union movement was to join with unions in
other countries that are starting to take stop work action to ensure massive
attendance of union members at anti-war mobilisations, and in refusing
to cooperate with the war machine, then such protest actions could begin
to dramatically raise the political cost of the war makers' defiance of
public opinion.
The war drive will only be stopped when it is made clear to the war
makers in Washington, London and Canberra that working people in the aggressor
countries will refuse to engage in “business as usual” so long as the lives
of hundreds of thousands of workers in Iraq are placed in jeopardy. Union-organised
action in opposition to the war drive can help workers deliver that message
to the war makers in the most direct manner possible.
From Green Left Weekly, March 12, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.
