MAY DAY PORT STRIKE AND A NEW DEFINITION OF "SOLIDARITY"

On May 1, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union violated its contract with the Pacific Maritime Association by staging a brief work-stoppage. The prohibited job action was purportedly in protest of the war in Iraq, but comes -- coincidentally? -- while the parties are attempting to negotiate a successor agreement to the expiring collective-bargaining agreement. One must wonder whether management should take the ILWU's negotiations terribly seriously, since the union showed how it feels about the sanctity of its current agreement, as interpreted by a third-party neutral arbitrator.

In a recent Counterpunch piece, writer David Macaray gushes over the ILWU's admittedly ineffectual work stoppage. Mr. Macaray provides us with yet another gem for consideration the next time card-check proponents explain that employees need no protection from union intimidation and harassment; that only management harasses employees regarding unions:

Nobody crosses an ILWU picket line, not unless he wants to pick his teeth up off the floor or find his car on fire. Admittedly, some will call this “intimidation”; the Longshoremen prefer to think of it as “solidarity.” And, unlike other unions, when there’s a strike or a lockout, you don’t see management bringing in replacement workers. That doesn’t happen on the docks. The PMA simply won’t take on that kind of trouble.

Got it? When the boss explains to a worker that he doesn't believe union representation is in his best interest, that's "intimidation." When the longshoreman kicks the worker in the mouth and torches his car, that's "solidarity" at work. Now that the semantics are clear, perhaps we can advance the debate....