Foreign unions and international labor bodies responded with outrage and sympathy to the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. But positions taken by foreign unions and international labor bodies on the military campaign to uproot bin Laden and the Taliban have generally been negative, often stridently so. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney has responded vigorously to them.

This debate could have far-reaching implications for American labor's role in international affairs. Several of the harshest critics of the U.S. have been labor bodies that have received considerable assistance from American unions in the past, and that have been close allies of the AFL-CIO in the anti-globalization movement.

An NEIS search found only one clear statement of foreign labor support for the coalition's military campaign. Sir Ken Jackson of Britain's Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union acknowledged the need for military action in an op/ed in The Sun (London), and added a blast at "the knee-jerk anti-Americans, the pacifists, and the compulsive dissenters, [who] are already coming out of the woodwork to preach self-loathing."
http://www.newecon.org/sirkenjacksonsun11101.html

But the best that many friends of American labor have been able to produce is fudge, in ways that would be amusing were the subject not so serious. The Canadian Labor Congress, while bemoaning predictable U.S. military excess, declares, "We support the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who have been assigned to participate with other forces in military intervention to seek out the al-Qaeda network." (They only support people, not policies.)
http://www.clc-ctc.ca/campaigns/peace_solidarity.html

The British union UNISON issues this perplexing declaration, "We regret that a military response has been deemed to be necessary." Germany's DGB exhorts everyone to deal with the root causes of terrorism -- but won't acknowledge that one root cause of terrorism could be terrorists. The world-wide International Confederation of Free Trade Unions instructs military planners to "avoid causing any civilian casualties whatsoever."
http://www.icftu.org/displaydocument.asp?Index=991213926&Language=EN

But fudging is the least of it. COSATU, the South African union federation that received much aid from the AFL-CIO during the anti-apartheid struggle, condemned the U.S. military strikes and added that "the effects of the U.S. actions, particularly the negative spillover effects on the economy, will be felt by the rest of the world." (No mention of the havoc wrought by bin Laden on world travel and investment.)
http://www.cosatu.org.za/press/2001/COSATU_statement_on_the_US_attacks_on_Afghanistan--27339.html

The Brazilian Central Unica dos Trabalhadores, a leading force in the anti-globalization movement, was even more accusing: "The reprehensible attacks of September 11 are being used by U.S. leaders to unleash war against the people of those countries designated as “terrorist accomplices,” as well as an economic and social war against the workers of the world, including the USA, where they have already had hundreds of thousands of layoffs, together with a reduction of civil liberties.
http://www.cut.org.br/ab20164.htm

A statement by the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions prompted AFL-CIO President John Sweeney to send back a blistering reply. The Korean unions, whose leaders were recently released from jail after a campaign of protest in which the AFL-CIO took an important part, argue that the September 11 attack has to be seen in the context of many "crimes" historically committed by the U.S. (Do these include our efforts to preserve South Korea's independence?)

The KCTU goes on to explain the U.S. response in terms of capitalist greed: "While the war may start out as an effort to seek 'retribution,' it will soon be turned into a war which will be driven by the thirst for profit among the nexus of the military- industry complex and hawkish Bush Administration."
http://www.kctu.org/news/kctu-peace.htm

President Sweeney's response to the KCTU firmly endorses U.S. military action, and touches a point of protocol that foreign unions often press upon Americans:"I strongly disagree with KCTU statements on U.S. policy in pursuing the terrorists and, given the importance of these issues to American working families, would have appreciated the opportunity to discuss the issue before such statements were released."

Sweeney also rejects economic conspiracy theories, and blames bin Laden for damage done to the world economy: "We do not see the U.S. response as an attempt to restructure the world into U.S.-dominated neo-liberal globalization, as you have been quoted. The assault on the World Trade Building and the Pentagon has sent the U.S. economy, already sinking, into a tailspin with a profound effect on the global economy. We are distressed in the knowledge that the severe economic downturn will disproportionately affect working people and the poor all over the world."

Until September 11 some hoped for an international Left that could draw American labor and its foreign counter- parts together for a face-off with the giants of global trade and finance. Anti-Americanism and indifference to the effects of terrorism on America's poor and working people on the part of unions abroad seems to be making that a distant dream.

Can Unions Bounce Back on the Internet?

To those who say that new technologies are making trade unionism obsolete comes this rejoinder: the Internet can be a powerful new tool for rebuilding union strength. It provides a means of organization and communication that is cheap, fast and increasingly acces- sible. This is the case set out in three recent articles that labor activists should find useful and provocative.

The first of these is by Wayne Diamond of the London School of Economics and Harvard's Richard Freeman [http://papers.nber.org/papers/w8483 --$5.00] Diamond and Freeman argue that "the internet offers unions great opportunities to improve services and attract members because it bridges the gap between an increasingly heterogeneous and individualistic work force and the collective solidarity that lies at the heart of unionism."

How so? First, contrary to a perception held even among many labor leaders in both the U.S. and the U.K., "union members are highly wired and as likely to access the web as non-members."

The costs of computer hardware are fast declining, and e-mail, group discussion capabilities and information search and retrieval tools are becoming cheap and easy to use. Thus one of the central costs and staff functions of a union organization is being treated to remarkable efficiencies. This, say Freeman and Diamond, will allow unions to customize services, and to extend services to workers in non-union firms. It also provides promising ways of giving unions a role in the job market.

If the authors' hypotheses prove correct, they contend, "within the next decade unions in the UK and the U.S. will change many of the services they provide members and the ways in which they operate, potentially morphing into a new 'E-union' form that will differ as much from current union organizations as industrial unions differed from their craft predecessors."

Similar themes are treated by Labourstart's Eric Lee in a review of what he calls the "second generation" of labor websites http://www.lsi.org.uk/pamphlet1.shtml. Lee has some useful cautionary advice. The E-union will require serious management and rules of the road -- no computer does the organizing for you. Lee's four proven elements to success in using the Internet in group communications are:

1. Moderate the forum.

2. Restrict access to those who really care about the subject.

3. Focus discussion on a particular subject.

4. Publicise the forums widely.

An excellent primer on how unions can bring information technology into "the centre of their purpose and strategy" is provided in a presentation Roger Darlington of the UK's Communication Workers' Union gave at a New Economy Confer- ence sponsored by the Deutsche Postgewerkschaft in Berlin. http://members.tripod.co.uk/rogerdarlington/E-union.html

Darlington skillfully walks through the various office and organizing functions that can be converted to electronic systems. He notes that many unions that fret over prospective costs already have the equipment required to conduct much of their business on the Internet, but lack the know-how to do it. All these authors note that providing union members with greater access to information and decision- making may give them greater advantages in dealing with employers, but may also bring challenges to some existing union power structures.

UK Labour Seeks "Missing Millions"

Britain's Trades Union Congress is addressing the challenges of building membership with a candor that is almost startling. In a report prepared for its October General Congress, the TUC leadership acknowledges that many think that "The union did a great job for my Dad, but it's not for me."

The Brits, like us, have fallen behind in the private sector: “. . .fewer than one in five employees in the private sector are now union members."

While it may appear that British unions are doing well among professional and technical workers, closer examination shows that “high levels of unionization among professionals are almost entirely explained by public sector professionals...."

Many young people are not joining unions when they enter the work force, and young college graduates are not joining unless they work in the public sector.

But the union scene in Britain is not all gloomy. A decline in membership due mainly to job losses in manufacturing has ended, and there has even been a small membership upturn. Unions still enjoy high levels of public support. And British unions are producing interesting ideas about how to reach these "missing millions."

One: develop an Internet-related advice and support service on work issues. The services would have to be quite good, and some might require payment. Non-members might be given access to some services as a way of establishing some relationship with them. Advice on training would be popular.

Another: develop an Internet-based service with Britain's National Union of Students that would advise recent graduates on problems of entering the work force.

The TUC wants to develop effective partnerships with employers. As General Secretary John Monks put it, "let no one suppose that all, or even most, of Britain's non-union workplaces are hot-beds of discontent. We all know of horrific practices and of bad employers, we come across them a lot, but it is not necessarily the general picture. In a period of reasonable prosperity, relying on the bad boss to be our recruiting sergeant won't organise the missing millions." (For the "Missing Millions" report go to: http://www.tuc.org.uk/the_tuc/tuc-3654-f0.cfm For TUC GenSec Monks's speech to the General Congress see http://www.tuc.org.uk/congress/tuc-3703-f0.cfm

Of Interest. . . .

AFL-CIO Executive Council November 8 statement on September 11 attacks. Workers back war effort. http://www.newecon.org/aflcioresolution11801.html

"Globalism Under Seige," by London Economist writers John Micklethwait and Adrian Woolridge, argues that the countries that breed terrorism are the least globalized. (This article can be purchased at: www.factiva.com.)

"Poor Choice," by Brink Lindsey. (The New Republic, 11.12.01) More reasons why it's hard to blame Islamic extremism on globalization. http://www.thenewrepublic.com/111201/lindsey111201.html

About NEIS's E-Bulletin

This E-Bulletin is published by the New Economy Information Service (NEIS), a project of the Foundation for Democratic Education. NEIS provides information and reviews debate on the impact globalization and technological change has on democracy at home and abroad. Current interest focuses on how American workers can be equipped with the skills they need for decent employment and economic security, and on how the globalization of the economy and the expansion of democracy can strengthen one another.

To make a contribution, offer a comment, add your name to our mailing list or to be removed from this list,please e-mail us at: postmaster@newecon.org or visit our web site at:http://www.newecon.org/