dagblog - Comments for "Big Labor’s Tool of Empire"

We agree on something after

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 12 May 2013 02:18:07 +0000

We agree on something after all. I did not get your tongue-in-cheek joke. But that's OK, sorry I missed a chuckle but I can handle it and I don't care whether or not you explain it.
As to your assertion that I used "The language of the anti-union corporate elite" and that I "Parrot ed corporate union-busters who love to exploit an alleged disconnect between union thugs and the workers", that is NOT ok. They are offensive allegations in and of themselves but also because they are completely wrong as to anything I intended or that I see that I did. They describe me as going against things I believe in so I do not want them stand as if I accept them as correct. I did not ask for an apology, though, I'm not so thin skinned as that. I asked for either a retraction which acknowledged your mistake or an explanation that supported your assertion. I consider a refusal to explain such loaded charges to be very rude.
I take your, " I'm done", as an admission that you will not stand by what you said because you cannot support what you said and are unwilling to admit it.

P.S. This is no joke but it is funny. The article by Mr. Ruiz has footnotes to documentation on the bottom that we both missed. One is a doctoral thesis. Here it is.

http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1862&context=etd

Just a couple quick quotes:

Page 136
Thus, the rough contours of Solidarity
Center funding via the NED in Latin
America indicate continuity with past AIFL
D practices. First, the ACILS [The American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS), better known as the Solidarity Center] has seen
significant activity in Latin America, specifically in regions (the Andes) where anti-neoliberal movements and leaders have emerged. Thus, the area of primary concern for the NED-ACILS has been in an area where
a crop of leaders, including Hugo Chavez, Rafael Correa, and Evo Morales, pushed back against the policies of the United States.
Second, the ACILS has been implicated in at
least one attempted coup (Venezuela 2002)
that received prominent attention from scholars and activists. Finally, the relationship between the Solidarity Center and labor organizations in Haiti is also highly suspect, and likely included activities designed to
destabilize the Aristide regime.

The doctoral thesis ends this way followed by 22 pages of references and footnotes.

Given the increasing
complexity of global capitalism, with value-
chains and manufacturing processes spread
around the globe, the labor movement needs more
focus on issues specific to the working
class rather than to U.S. foreign policy. At
home, there are early indications that the AFL-CIO is beginning to respond to increasing income and political inequality among
the working class, and hopefully Federation membership will remember that part of the solution to these structural inequalities is found in true solidarity with the working class
worldwide.

Listen, first of all "my

Bruce Levine — Sat, 11 May 2013 23:27:04 +0000

In reply to Let me go back a ways. Around

Listen, first of all "my secular passion" reference was a tongue in cheek inside baseball joke that apparently did not work with you.

Second of all, I don't think I need to retract anything, and I won't apologize because it would be a dishonest apology. I guess I could say that it was not my purpose to offend you, and that would be true and it is genuine, but other than that I'm done. Thanks.

I will say that I understand that because Solidarity gets its funding through government grants your antennae are raised. I also understand that it is entirely possible and plausible that Solidarity's work in Venezuela was also a conduit for other more sinister purposes with the blessing of the leadership of national labor leaders. If that is your point, that is your point. But you have no evidence that that was the case--which I believe you acknowledge but think it to beside the point. In short, if you believe--and you really do seem like you do believe this--that the AFL-CIO of Sweeney (and not Meany) must be presumed guilty of assisting the Bush Administration in the attempted Venezuelan coup in 2002, then that's your view and I disagree with you. Otherwise, why the bald speculation, which is my original and consistent principal point.

Let me go back a ways. Around

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 11 May 2013 22:30:46 +0000

In reply to I'm confused. Mr. Ruiz, the

Let me go back a ways. Around the time of the Venezuelan election and then again when Chavez died there were discussions here on those subjects. A part of those discussions was whether the U.S. had engaged in undermining Chavez. I held that it had. Some were non-committal and some disagreed. The article by Mr. Ruiz added assertions as to one way that the U.S. meddled. I thought it informative, interesting, and supportive of a position I had taken earlier, so I posted it. The fact that this individual case involved unions was not my main point but of course if it was incorrect it should be corrected.

You seem to have taken it only as an attack on unions and because it lacked citations you [angrily I think] objected and asked in the form of a rhetorical question whether I was being fair to unions.

And I don't dismiss the significance of the issue. I just don't think it's helpful to delve into a subject as multi-faceted as this one (my real secular passion by the way is American labor history and not really labor law) with unfounded speculation.

As a union supporter and a lawyer working on union issues and one who says he does not dismiss the significance of the issue you might have read a bit closer the later links and seen that the answer to all your questions had been presented by now.

I'm confused. Mr. Ruiz, the author of the first article, started out with an undocumented attack on "Big Labor". But then here Jordan states that unions only contribute around 3 percent of the budget for Solidarity Center, suggesting that Big or Little or any Labor is not behind Solidarity Center, but rather it is really just an arm of the government.

Yes, you are confused. The Solidarity Center is an arm of the AFL/CIO but it is also an arm of the government. That is, as you say, significant. The devious ways it is alleged to have acted in many countries and which actually hurt the union movement in those countries is described in many places besides the ones I linked to and in at least one book which got very good reviews.

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations is a national trade union center, the largest federation of unions in the United States, made up of fifty-six national and international unions. If you google AFL/CIO solidarity center and then click on a page by the AFL/CIO rather than one put up by a critic of the Solidarity Center you will see a glowing report of their fine work done somewhere. The ones I clicked on all started with something like this:

"Healthcare nurses Mari Cordes and Barbara Rock traveled to Sri Lanka in March as part of a trip sponsored by the AFL-CIO's Solidarity Center, ..."

http://www.solidaritycenter.org/

Notice the apostrophe before the 's'. The Solidarity Center is a part of the AFL/CIO which is certainly "big labor".

The links I provided also show that TSC gets almost all of its money from the NED and that the NED gets almost all its money from AIDS which gets all of its money from the U.S. government. I think that is enough to establish it as a tool of the government or, as Mr. Ruiz puts it, a tool of the empire, but there is plenty more documentation if you care to look for youself just a little bit. If TSC is doing dirty work for the government then "Big Labor" is doing dirty work for the government.

When I said the closer a person gets to the activist base of a union the further one gets from the attitudes and influences motivating the highly paid bosses at the top, I was talking about the distance between an involved union worker and a high union official. [Most of them are not involved. Many cuss paying union dues as much as some people cuss paying taxes. Not a small number just consider the union to be their lawyer, and they take damaging advantage of the protection provided by their union. That is, unless things have improved greatly over the last twenty years, but I doubt that] . Your response to that is:

Seems to be a non-sequitur with what you were presenting, but in any event, aside from your decision to use the language of the anti-union corporate elite (you're not the first "activist" to do this), I think the answer would be maybe and maybe not.

I really do wish you would show what language I have used that can be described as the language of the anti-union corporate elite. Otherwise I expect you to take that charge back. And, it has been over twenty years since I left my twenty year union job which included a few years as an elected representative. Although I still support unions, mostly in principle, I am no longer a union activist.

Perhaps, instead of parroting corporate union-busters who love to exploit an alleged disconnect between union thugs and the workers, you might try to read up a little bit instead of just serving up these undocumented polemics you insist are entitled to serious consideration--which even you concede are the product of a post-hoc

Parroting union-busters my aching ass. The last couple supporting links I gave were derived from union sources. They were posted on union publications. They were posted by people who wanted other union people to read them. Yeah, I should read some more about the subject. Why? So I can explain something more about your secular passion that is as simple as showing that TSC is an arm of the AFL/CIO?

Oops. I have to say, I'm

Bruce Levine — Sat, 11 May 2013 20:16:37 +0000

In reply to So here's something that I

Oops. I have to say, I'm listening to a bit more and Scipes gets a little unstructured or something. And then he seems to suggest that Gompers did not adequately oppose the Nazis, and I'm thinking to myself, wait. . .what was Hitler doing when Gompers died in 1924? Maybe his book is better but he kind of lost me. Anyway, thanks.

So here's something that I

Bruce Levine — Sat, 11 May 2013 18:40:31 +0000

In reply to I'm confused. Mr. Ruiz, the

So here's something that I think offers the kind of stuff that teaches and to your credit I found it by poking around on the links you have above. I don't understand the whole uploading thing but here is a link to a Youtube interview with a Professor Kim Scipes, who just wrote a book about the role of the historical role of organized labor in American foreign affairs.

It's an hour long and I haven't finished it yet Professor Scipes correctly points out that the "business" or "craft" union approach of Sam Gompers led him to among other things oppose all things socialist. Scipes also points out that Gompers, like many in his day, and particularly as always American workers feeling insecure about immigrant competition, was unapologetically racist. I know this from studying the archived material on Gompers on this very issue back in college in or about 1980. Incredible, and unfortunate, but there to explore and attempt to understand.

I have only listened to the first part of Scipes interview, about 10 minutes or so, and haven't done the whole thing and may not get to it. The time of Gompers that he describes was diverse and lacking in any uniform future vision. In or about 1880 when Gompers, who learned the trade as a reader in a cigar factory, was just beginning to lead a the craft-centered American "business" union movement that would become the American Federation of Labor ("AFL"), there was another labor force represented by the Knights of Labor. Unlike the craft-centered, anti-immigrant essence of Gompers and his colleagues in the AFL, Terrence Powderly and his allies in the Knights of Labor sought to organize workers into One Big Union.

The conflict between--and among--industrial and craft unionists continues to simmer to this very day, and that conflict. Like Scipes, I totally agree that Gompers interfered with anything smelling of "socialism" (I think that's a bit overstated but blah blah). As Scipes also points out, this helps us to understand why Gompers was willing to assist the government in Mexico and elsewhere. Still, all of this has to be understood as inextricably intertwined with that ever-present conflict between business and industrial unions. That conflict was seen first in the relationship or lack thereof between the Knights of Labor and the AFL, and then the AFL and the Industrial Workers of the World ("IWW"), the "Wobblies". The Wobblies, a powerful force until permanently disabled as a national force as one of the worker organizations that was decimated during the First War and intensifying with the post-war Palmer Raids (and bringing us J. Edgar Hoover and losing Emma Goldman and other foreign-born "radicals" to deportation).

There is also a third strain that we haven't touched, I think, principally in the textile industries, manifested in the craft/industrial mixture in the ILG. That's another story.

I'm confused. Mr. Ruiz, the

Bruce Levine — Sat, 11 May 2013 17:20:34 +0000

In reply to I took a google trip using

I'm confused. Mr. Ruiz, the author of the first article, started out with an undocumented attack on "Big Labor". But then here Jordan states that unions only contribute around 3 percent of the budget for Solidarity Center, suggesting that Big or Little or any Labor is not behind Solidarity Center, but rather it is really just an arm of the government.

But then you conclude with this:

The closer a person gets to the activist base of a union the further one gets from the attitudes and influences motivating the highly paid bosses at the top.

Seems to be a non-sequitur with what you were presenting, but in any event, aside from your decision to use the language of the anti-union corporate elite (you're not the first "activist" to do this), I think the answer would be maybe and maybe not. I'm not sure which activist base you're referring to or what you know of that base's position on alleged anti-Chavez intervention by Big Labor in Venezuela. I think the same could be said for any mass movement, including say the Chavez movement in Venezuela, for example. Perhaps, instead of parroting corporate union-busters who love to exploit an alleged disconnect between union thugs and the workers, you might try to read up a little bit instead of just serving up these undocumented polemics you insist are entitled to serious consideration--which even you concede are the product of a post-hoc google search.

I took a google trip using

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 11 May 2013 16:10:08 +0000

In reply to He definitely has a bee in

I took a google trip using your search terms and quickly came to a page from The Longshore and Shipping News. It is a publication of The International Longshore and Warehouse Union. [ILWU] It is a member of the AFL-CIO.
The Longshore and Shipping News has the following disclaimer:

The articles excerpted on this site report on the state of the industry as seen by mainstream media, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the officers of the ILWU Coast Longshore Division.

With that in mind I believe that when they link to an article from another site and put it on their front page they indicate that they believe the article has some credence. Here are some quotes from two of many articles published and linked to on that page.

From The Bogota Solidarity Centre and Possible Intervention in Venezuela, by James Jordan - Alliance for Global Justice, July 31st 2012

The Solidarity Center office in Bogotá has received an unusually large two-year grant of $3 million for its operations in the Andean Region. The scope and dimensions of the grant are not fully known, nor the exact programs to which it will be applied. However, given the history of the Bogotá office and the Solidarity Center’s Andean representatives, observers expect the grant to have major implications for the countries of Colombia and Venezuela, where the office’s work is usually concentrated. The Andean region also covers Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia. The Solidarity Center has offices both in Colombia and Peru.

Because of the documented history of the AFL-CIO intervention in Venezuela through its Solidarity Center, activists must analyze past history and current circumstances in order to be able to discuss intelligently what we may anticipate from these augmented activities.

The Solidarity Center is one of four core institutes of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and a creation of the United States’ largest union center, the AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Unions). Along with the Solidarity Center, the four core institutes of the NED are: the International Republican Institute (associated with the Republican Party), the National Democratic Institute (associated with the Democratic Party), and the International Center for Private Enterprise (associated with the Chambers of Commerce).The NED was established by the US government in 1983, during the Reagan administration.

The NED exists for one reason–to manipulate governments, social movements and elections in other countries in order to advance the international policies of the US which, in turn, are designed to accommodate private access to natural resources and increase transnational corporate profits. In an interview with the New York Times in 1991, Allen Weinstein, one of the NED’s founders, said that, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly by the CIA.”

The Solidarity Center receives over 90% of its funding from the public coffers by means of the Department of State, USAID and the NED. Union contributions are typically around two to three percent. Thus, the Solidarity Center has little to do with union locals and rank and file unionists, although it has the full cooperation of the highest officials of the AFL-CIO. Local unions have no input or say in the establishment of international relations or program development. The Solidarity Center has some good and helpful programs and some that are at least more or less benign. But these good programs can act to hide a more fundamental purpose to infiltrate and influence the labor movements of other countries and to provide a channel of interference in their electoral processes.

Emphasis added. This is from a much longer article than the one by Mr.Ruiz and it expands greatly on the charges made in Counterpunch.

http://afgj.org/usaid-grants-3-million-to-solidarity-centers-bogota-offi...

Another article by a different author.

USAID Grants $3 Million to Solidarity Center’s Bogotá Office – Unionists Want to Know Why

by James Jordan (Alliance for Global Justice)

http://wrongkindofgreen.org/2012/06/25/usaid-grants-3-million-to-solidar...

The closer a person gets to the activist base of a union the further one gets from the attitudes and influences motivating the highly paid bosses at the top.

He definitely has a bee in

artappraiser — Sat, 11 May 2013 00:22:43 +0000

In reply to Same place, same ol' guy,

He definitely has a bee in his bonnet on topic. (Whether reasonable or not, I do not presume to judge.) If you plug this into Google:

"Alberto C. Ruiz" AFL-CIO Solidarity Center

you get 3,670 results.

Same place, same ol' guy,

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 10 May 2013 23:54:31 +0000

In reply to Big Labor’s Tool of Empire

Same place, same ol' guy, same ol' story [2011].

Again, the truth is uncertain, but given the AFL-CIO’s horrendous track record in Latin America, and in Venezuela in the very recent past; given that it is intentionally concealing the fact that it is even working in Venezuela in the first place; and given that it continues to be heavily dependent upon funding from the U.S. government and NED — two sources openly hostile to the current government in Venezuela – it is fair to have suspicions that the AFL-CIO is up to questionable deeds in Venezuela.

He seems to build a strong case.

There are no links, but he claims to be quoting the new York Times and the Boston Globe in multiple places.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/09/the-afl-cio%E2%80%99s-covert-ops-...

I don't know what role, if

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 10 May 2013 20:00:54 +0000

In reply to And, for the record, I am

I don't know what role, if any, whatever it is that you call "Big Labor" played in the coup attempt in Venezuela. But the problem is that neither do you or anyone else who reads the article you post by Mr. Ruiz in Counterpunch, and in particular this particular allegation in support of which there is no citation.

You apparently read the article so you should have noticed that I did not compose the title and I did not make up the term, 'big labor'. That said, I obviously think the article had some value or I wouldn't have posted it.

Are you being fair to whatever it is you call "Big Labor"?

Here's what Solidarity Center writes about its activities in Venezuela.

Your only direct charge against the position stated by Mr. Ruiz is that he does not offer proof, or as you put it, "factual predicate", of his charges. I can see that the article would be stronger if it had footnotes or a link to the diplomatic cable. BUT, as a rebuttal to the assertions by Mr. Ruiz you then offer a statement that Solidarity Center makes about itself. That statement is obviously self-serving, as any mission statement would be, whether accurately describing its total activities and goals or not. Do you know that Mr.Ruiz mis-characterizes Solidarity Centers actions? Can you prove it?

Is there anything in what is stated here that you take issue with?

I take issue with any assertion that the Solidarity Center's self-description statement is a definitive and conclusive rebuttal to ... anything.

Here is Ambassador Brownsfield's cable somewhat edited with a link to the full text. Any bold is my addition as are any italicized parenthetical comments.

1. (S) During his 8 years in power, President Chavez has systematically dismantled the institutions of democracy and governance. The USAID/OTI program objectives in Venezuela focus on strengthening democratic institutions and spaces through non-partisan cooperation with many sectors of Venezuelan society. [A self-contradictory statement. It alleges actions by Chavez which it will try to reverse and calls that intent "non-partisan".]

2. In August of 2004, Ambassador outlined the country team's 5 point strategy to guide embassy activities in Venezuela for the period 2004 ) 2006 (specifically, from the referendum to the 2006 presidential elections). The strategy's focus is: 1) Strengthening Democratic Institutions, 2) Penetrating Chavez' Political Base, 3) Dividing Chavismo, 4) Protecting Vital US business, and 5) Isolating Chavez internationally. [Sounds like pretty strong intentional meddling in the affairs of a popularly elected leader of a foreign government]

3. A brief description of USAID/OTI activities during the aforementioned time.

Strengthen democratic institutions.

------------------------------

3. (S) A brief description of USAID/OTI activities during the aforementioned time period in support of the strategy follows: ------------- Strengthen Democratic Institutions

4. (S) This strategic objective represents the majority of USAID/OTI work in Venezuela. Organized civil society is an increasingly important pillar of democracy, one where President Chavez has not yet been able to assert full control.

5. (S) OTI has supported over 300 Venezuelan civil society organizations with technical assistance, capacity building, connecting them with each other and international movements, and with financial support upwards of $15 million. Of these, 39 organizations focused on advocacy have been formed since the arrival of OTI; many of these organizations as a direct result of OTI programs and funding.

Numbers 6, 7, and 8 skipped because long and less relevant.

9. (S) Another key Chavez strategy is his attempt to divide and polarize Venezuelan society using rhetoric of hate and violence. [A cursory glance at available information shows that Chavez side was hardly alone or the worst in its use of demonizing rhetoric.] OTI supports local NGOs who work in Chavista strongholds and with Chavista leaders, using those spaces to counter this rhetoric and promote alliances through working together on issues of importance to the entire community. OTI has directly reached approximately 238,000 adults through over 3000 forums, workshops and training sessions delivering alternative values and providing opportunities for opposition activists to interact with hard-core Chavistas, with the desired effect of pulling them slowly away from Chavismo. [Non-partisan?] We have supported this initiative with 50 grants totaling over $1.1 million. There are several key examples of this

10, 11, and 12 ...............................

13. (S) Finally, through support of a positive social impact campaign in cooperation with PAS, OTI funded 54 social projects all over the country, at over $1.2 million, allowing Ambassador to visit poor areas of Venezuela and demonstrate US concern for the Venezuelan people. This program fosters confusion within the Bolivarian ranks, and pushes back at the attempt of Chavez to use the United States as a "unifying enemy." --------------- Isolate Chavez

14, 15, and 16, skipped but worth reading.

17. (S) Through carrying out positive activities, working in a non-partisan way across the ideological landscape, OTI has been able to achieve levels of success in carrying out the country team strategy in Venezuela. [the falsity or the non-partisan claim is well established,IMO.] These successes have come with increasing opposition by different sectors of Venezuelan society and the Venezuelan government. Should Chavez win the December 3rd presidential elections, OTI expects the atmosphere for our work in Venezuela to become more complicated.

BROWNFIELD

How much more complicated did it get after Chavez actually did win? Never mind, don't speculate.

All this is only evidence that the U.S. government was actively working to undercut Chavez. It does not prove that Solidarity Center was one of the organizations involved, as Mr. Ruiz claimed, and even if it was involved in the country it still may have been just as they claim, totally above board in motives and actions. You seem to think that should be the unquestioned default position. All things considered, I disagree.

I just don't think it's helpful to delve into a subject as multi-faceted as this one (my real secular passion by the way is American labor history and not really labor law) with unfounded speculation.

The multiple facets of international involvement actually give ample reason to pay attention to what you call unfounded speculation. I think it is well founded speculation and speculating is about all we can do unless we just choose to believe every thing we are fed and ignore what they have attempted to keep secret. I think there is ample evidence to indicate that the U.S. government was involved with an active agenda to weaken Chavez with the intention of influencing a change of power back to the previous right wing ruling class. They worked partly through the funding of NGO's.

http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=06CARACAS3356&version=131491...