By David Bacon

        LOS ANGELES, CA  (7/30/04) - On June 22 the national 
convention of the Service Employees International Union, with 1.7 
million members the US' largest, voted unanimously to oppose the 
occupation of Iraq.  This was followed a few days later by a similar 
resolution, passed by another of the AFL-CIO's largest unions, the 
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and 
then by a resolution passed by the California Labor Federation, 
representing one-sixth of all US union members.
        The SEIU resolution called for "a just foreign policy based 
on international law and global 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.
        David Bacon talked with SEIU Executive Vice President Eliseo
Medina about the resolution for Wartimes.  The resolution represents 
SEIU's official policy, but Medina outlined his own personal views 
about labor and the war.

DB:  Why did SEIU members support the resolution so strongly?

EM: 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.

The Bush administration sold the war with allegations of weapons of 
mass destruction.  But there were none, and our delegates knew this. 
Bush said that Saddam Hussein was connected to the attacks of 9/11, 
but there was no connection and our delegates knew this too.  The 
administration assured people that the troops would waltz in and 
waltz out, and that certainly wasn't the case either.

They were especially concerned about the increasing isolation of the 
US.  They want the US 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, and that this was not a valid reason for waging it.  They 
were very suspicious of the motivation of the Bush administration.

DB:  Did the resolution cause much discussion?

EM:  Delegates spoke from their hearts.  Our union went through a 
thorough debate on the war before the resolution came up, including 
discussion in local unions.  Our members have a natural tendency to 
want to stand behind the troops and their country. Many of them have 
children or relatives in Iraq, and felt that we had to support them. 
But the more the discussion went on, they 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.

Our members are not a collection of left wing radicals.  They're a 
cross section of America - blue collar workers, professionals in 
hospitals, janitors. We have a large immigrant membership, there's a 
professional class of doctors, attorneys and social workers, and a 
big section of public workers.  Our members are fairly representative 
of many levels of US society.

DB:  Did they feel the war is affecting people here in the US then?

EM:  The war is draining resources needed at home, leaving a huge 
deficit and leading to the loss of jobs in the public sector  I often 
hear members say they deeply resent the way the administration 
announces services it says it will make available in Iraq, while 
cutting the same services here at home.  They're very aware that the 
war doesn't benefit them.

DB:  What effect did the resolution have on other unions?

EM:  The California state federation of labor adopted a similar 
resolution almost unanimously, and that's not just SEIU.  It includes 
building trades unions and manufacturing workers as well.  I hope 
other unions will now add their voices too.

I can't speak for the whole labor movment, but many people tell me 
they feel we were misled and that the whole war was a huge mistake. 
There's a lot of concern about the way it's been waged, and the fact 
that there's no plan to achieve peace.

DB:  What about the national AFL-CIO - do you expect it to take a 
position against the war?

EM:  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 Sweeney condemned Bush's unilateral action without UN 
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.

DB:  Six months ago, many Democratic Party and labor election 
strategists said that opposing the war would lead to losing the 
election to Bush.  Do you agree?

EM:  It's wrong to think that speaking out on the war is the kiss of 
death in November.  At the Democratic Convention I heard many people 
say they thought we were heading in the wrong direction, and that we 
need to do something about it.  The war is one of Bush's many 
failures.  It's had huge repercussions on the budget deficits, which 
are overwhelmingly due to two causes - his tax cuts and the war.

DB:  If Kerry is elected, do you think he'll pull US troops out?

EM:  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.

Even with the handover, it's still our war.  There no real 
responsibility passing to the interim government, and US soldiers are 
still doing the fighting.  The Iraqi people just want to have their 
country back. It's time to bring the troops home.

contact LaborNet

copyright 2004 © LaborNet