Some Thoughts On The Labor Movement & The Campus Protests

Student- and youth-led protests supporting a ceasefire in Gaza are sweeping across the United States and the world. In some countries, mass protests supporting a ceasefire and pro-Palestinian demands are being organized by coalitions that are led in part by unions and by popular social movements. This work is being done from many corners of world labor and from many perspectives.

Popular media in the United States often either ignores the protests being held here or so misstates the facts on the ground concerning these protests that media watchers and readers might come away with the mistaken impression that the campus protests are, by their nature and intent, anti-Semitic, violent, and led by people who are not students and who have ulterior motives. I want to encourage readers of this blog to explore counter-narratives concerning the campus protests. You might want to start here and here in order to begin examining counter-narratives concerning the protests. 

I believe that three aspects of these protest movements in the United States are not being sufficiently explored in either our popular or alterntive media and that these points should be of special interest to the labor movement. We should start by acknowledging that most unions in the United States have been strong supporters of Israel since its founding in 1948 and that this support has come with little discussion or debate and that some within labor who have opposed this course have lost their jobs and have found it difficult to find other employment or have faced other forms of censorship. For a broad view on this matter, see this article that appeared in Labor Notes and this article as well.

There is no principle at stake here that says that we cannot or should not take positions on events that are occuring elsewhere in the world and that may not be of immediate concern to the immediate welfare of all union members. Rather, the principle has been that the mainstream labor movement in the U.S. has tended to fall safely in step with U.S. foreign policy goals and has often enlisted in the ideological battle for winning those goals through AIFLD and the ACILS. (There have been notable exception to this principle.) Most union members will not be  familiar with AIFLD and ASCILS and are not aware that their unions are engaged in international affairs.  

In our current moment, on the other hand, we see many unions cautiously breaking with our past and adopting calls for a ceasefire in Gaza. Some perspective on this change in affairs can be found here, here, and here. The February 8 statement by AFL-CIO condemning "the attacks by Hamas on October 7th" and calling for "a negotiated cease-fire in Gaza—including the immediate ingrelease of all hostages and provision of desperately needed shelter, food, medicine and other humanitarian assistance to Gazans" and reaffirming AFL-CIO "support of a two-state solution for long-term peace and security” marked a historic turning point for labor.

This brings me to the first aspect of our present moment that I want to comment on. The campus protests are indeed initiated and led by students, but these protests are increasingly involving university faculty and staff, and to the extent that unionized faculty and staff are involved these protests become union issues. This is particularly underscored when faculty and staff are attacked by the police and counter-protestors, are threatened with firing, or are fired. See this recent post, this recent post, and this recent post that have appeared on this blog for some idea of what this looks like. My points here are that unions that represent workers who are being victimized have a duty of fair representation in many of these cases, whether the unions involved support a ceasefire or not, and that unions such as the United Auto Workers and the United Electrical Workers (UE) have especially large union locals with members that have been facing repression on campuses. UAW President Shawn Fein has been especially forthright in defense of UAW members who are engaging in protests. This post from the UAW tells a story in its own right.   

 

Mainstream media is not telling the story of the campus protests from a labor or working-class perspective. There are wild cards in play here. The media's emphasis has been on whether or not President Biden's reelection is at risk because of these protests and what is taken to be his "pro-Israel" stance and what is generally perceived as being subtle shifts in that stance. The popular line is that Biden is alienating young voters by not supporting a ceasefire and by supporting Israel but also stands to lose at least some Jewish support for his shifts in policy. The other wild card here, at least for the labor movement, is whether or not union support for a ceasefire and for union members who are victimized for protesting will lead to union growth on campuses or not. The UAW, the UE, and some CWA local unions that are engaging in supporting calls for a ceasefire and for defending their members who are attacked look good to large numbers of young people and to many campus workers right now. This feels a bit like the days of the Occupy movement and the early days of the Black Lives Matter movement in some ways. Both of those movements showed the labor movement that we have lots to learn or relearn and they have helped push us in positive directions.

The primary movements for social change in the late 1960s and early 1970s won limited gains or lost in part because they were easily characterized as being youth movements and then isolated. In our current moment, however, there is an opportunity to build solidarity between young people and campus workers and their unions. Union members, as much as anyone else, need to fully understand the demands being raised in the protests.

Photo from Hussein Malla / AP/ People's World. See this article for an analysis of 

what is at issue in the campus protests. 

Another aspect of the moment that we're in has to do with what Labor has to teach the pro-ceasefire movement and the protesters and activists. We understand the discipline needed in striking and winning while other social movements may not, or these movements may see things differently than we do. Striking is not only about getting your sign, marching in a circle for a few hours, and picking up strike pay. The recent Portland Association of Teachers strike (see here and here) reminds us that strikes are also about forming transformative new relationships, pitching in to help coworkers cover childcare and rent and car payments, and winning public support. Most of go into strikes knowing that we have to define what a victory is and with the patience that gives us the strength to fight for what we didn't win when we return to work. Doing this right takes discipline and experience. We can teach this to others if we stop to take a breath and use our critical thinking skills to analyze what has and has not worked for us in the past.

In line with this, we need to carefully study and adopt/adapt passive resistance and the intricate psychology of confrontational non-violence. Our labor history is full of useful examples of us using non-violent civil disobedence, and it would be hypocritical and wrong-headed for us to criticize others for following our example. Here is a great labor video to help us start understanding this:

One of the many remarkable features of the strike shown in the video above was that the strikers and their families and closest supporters stayed on message despite police brutality, hostile courts and other violence. The company was the primary target and the goal was a strong union contract and the union remained on message throughout the strike. This won strong public support and support from many prominent progressive people who would not have otherwise engaged with coal miners in Appalachia. I know this because I was there. 
 

My last point here builds on something that the labor movement knows and carries in our DNA but that we do not often acknowldge. We know from union organizing that we do not begin an organizing campaign with puttng forward maximum demands. We find core issues that unite most people and we become the living voice of those demands and we win over people who are neutral or sitting on the fence by listening to them and creating safe space with them and including what they want in our demands if that's possible. It's a slow and steady step-by-step process that can suddenly accelerate. In some sense, then, we organize on the basis of loving our co-workers more than we do on hating our bosses.

The movements for a ceasefire and for the liberation of Palestine do their best work when then start with demands for a ceasefire and peace and use those to split their opposition and win over or neutralize some who oppose them. By doing this they put the fence-sitters in the positon of having to choose between what is human and good and what is pro-war and pro-genocide. So long as the movements have been doing that they have been winning against all odds and are building a pro-peace majority before the November elections. 

The views expressed here are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the Marion-Polk-Yamhill Central Labor Chapter or the Oregon AFL-CIO. Other opinions from union members in our region on this subject are welcome and will be appreciated.