Soldiers of Solidarity: up from below, rank and filers struggle for a future
Submitted on Sat, 06/17/2006 - 2:04am
Disclaimer - The following article is reposted here because it is an issue with some relevance to the IWW. The views of the author do not necessarily agree with those of the IWW and vice versa.
By C. Alexander - Originally for publication April 2006
On October 8, 2005, Delphi Corporation filed for business reorganization under chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the end being: the elimination or downsizing of 25 of it’s 45 U.S. plants - resulting in an estimated 20,000 job losses (2/3’s of it’s total U.S. labor force); a 60% slashing of wages, dropping pay to an estimated $9.50 an hour for it’s remaining production workers; increasing the healthcare costs it’s workforce must pay from 7 to 27 percent; and the scrapping of worker programs such as the “Jobs Banks” which provides workers with schooling and alternative work assignments when laid-off.
The following month during a November 2nd speech to union leaders, international United Auto Worker (UAW) president Ron Gettelfinger, called for a "work to rule" in which auto workers would do the bare minimum of labor required of them stating, "We should not do one thing more than what is required". Nearing a month since Delphi announced its intent, and as fear and frustration mounted among workers, Gettelfinger was forced to respond and attempt to exhibit some oppositional spine.
Within days, militants from the auto industry gave meaning to Gettelfinger’s words. In a non-UAW sanctioned meeting auto workers said they would organize to fight Delphi. Using Gettelfinger’s statement as justification, the militants have embarked on a campaign to build a grassroots fighting movement whose aim is to engage and prepare fellow rank and filers for an unfolding struggle to resist corporate attacks – both within the auto industry and on the broader working classes.
Background:
Delphi Delphi is the largest auto parts supplier in the U.S. and is a division of General Motors that was “spun off” in 1999. Initially heralded by the business community as a bold and inventive maneuver that would allow for more flexibility of both companies, Delphi was never made truly independent of GM. It was a way for GM to get under-performing assets off of their books while still preserving direct control of Delphi by existing as the primary buyer of Delphi’s inventory.
An article in Business Week from November 2005 entitled, Spin Off’s That Wont Go Away, stated, “GM… lumbered them (Delphi) with huge labor costs while extracting promises from them to cut their prices”. Delphi was an experiment designed for bankruptcy. The results would allow Delphi, and GM, to argue that the crisis in the auto industry results from healthcare and wage payouts to it’s workers and retiree’s. Bankruptcy would allow Delphi to seek the elimination of union contracts and overhaul it’s labor force through layoffs and plant closures. This tactic corresponds with a general leveling of wages and benefits by the trans-national corporations, the logic of which will make U.S. labor sectors “competitive”. Delphi’s move may be the new pace setter for a speed up in economic and social decline.
SOS
Soldiers of Solidarity (SOS) was formed Dec. 4th 2005 in Bay City, Michigan. Previous to this founding, a series of popular meetings had been organized in an attempt to raise consciousness, solidify a base, and promote the idea of resistance to a) specifically, Delphi’s restructuring bankruptcy that entails plant closures and deep cuts in pensions and wages, and b) generally, the broader restructuring that the US auto industry is hoping to initiate.
The meetings varied in attendance. The first meetings numbered 60 to 70 soon growing to 300+ within a month - the Flint, Michigan meeting being the largest in numbers and participation from the floor. Other meetings were organized in Indiana, Wisconsin and New York. Based on directly democratic principles, these meetings had loose agendas that were voted on by the attendees before meetings proceeded. This allowed workers the ability to raise issues, promote upcoming actions and give general updates. What was important is that these forums created a space for people to speak their minds and talk about their frustrations, whether over Delphi or the UAW’s failure to layout any plan of defense. These meetings allowed for face to face contact and were free of officials, although there has always been standing invitations to UAW leaders to come and participate “as equals”. In addition, rank and filers were asked to consider joining the SOS steering committee to participate in debate and action planning.
Although adopting Gettelfinger’s call for a “work to rule” campaign, the S.O.S. is an autonomous initiative coming directly from the rank and file. It has come into existence because of the disconnect between UAW leaders and their base – the workers in the plants. Workers feel that the union has done little to nothing - there has been no official UAW policy of implementing “Work to Rule” (work to rule is a “legal” slowdown in which workers do only the minimum of what is expected of them according to union contract. A mass practice of this tactic results in the liquidation of stocked products, making a future strike that much more disruptive. It also allows workers to build solidarity, both within the plant, and simultaneously on an industry wide basis through coordination and back each other up when the manager and bosses start hassling workers).
Many rank and filers see the union leadership as “AWOL” having failed to even discuss the Delphi situation with union members. This said, S.O.S. has not positioned itself as an alternative to the UAW. Many of the militants in S.O.S. identify with their union’s past and consider themselves union loyalists.
Initially, militants sought to down play their opposition to the UAW bureaucracy. Gregg Shotwell, an influential S.O.S. rank and filer and Delphi worker from Coopersville, Michigan, early on took the position that “The (UAW) has it’s purpose at the bargaining table, but we have our purpose at the shop floor. We can effect the company more than the International union can, The International can call a strike in the next six months, but we can put economic hardship on Delphi and GM right now.” This position creates an ambiguous relationship between S.O.S. and the UAW. While the militants are frustrated with the lack of on-the-ground union leadership, there is a simultaneous desire to see the union adopt a fighting character and break with years of “partnership” with the auto corporations. A website that has fast become a leading resource and voice within the rank and file movement is Future of the Union. It outlines the following in a document, “We are a movement for serious and immediate change in our union…Those who call us radicals fail to understand the rapid decline of union membership in the United States is a direct effect of business unionism and corporate unions…We believe there must be a new direction in the UAW and how it operates…We stand against union management cooperation and their joint activities programs” (from About Future of the Union).
Then and Now: remembering the Flint Sit Down Strike
It is of relevance to stress that the S.O.S. movement consistently recalls the efforts of the Flint Sit-down Strike of 1936-37 in which a sector of the auto workers occupied the plants and shut GM down. A dynamic event, the strike’s life and organization contains too many details to map out in this article. But a brief sketch is important. The strike 1) galvanized workers locally and on a national scale. Regular strikes emerged in several Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin cities where GM had plants, 2) it reintroduced shop floor direct action as a weapon, 3) was controlled directly by the workers and their strike committees, 4) confronted a conservative union authority who had rejected confrontation with GM, 5) eventually won reforms that improved working conditions, and 6) the strike built the image of the UAW as fighting union, forcing the auto industry as a whole to the bargaining table.For radicals, the Strike proved that independent action against officialdom, the boss class and the State was still possible. The Sit-downers and their outside support networks organized every detail of their struggle, from strike defense to feeding themselves. The experience was one of the class relying on itself, for itself. In the current period, these lessons are far from obsolete. While conditions have changed, the Sit-down Strike is a powerful reminder of a time when workers fought and won.
SOS Action and Organizing
SOS, while growing in size, remains a minority movement within the auto workers. The effects of an authoritarian and hierarchical social order, combined with several decades of relative economic stability, have taken it’s toll on people – in a society where “leaders”, bureaucrats, and politicians have managed peoples affairs down to the micro level, the how’s and why’s of organizing an effective fight is not immediately present. Cynicism towards struggle is more prevalent than the spirit of resistance. Organizers and militants are facing an uphill battle. The stake’s may be apparent to some, but many other workers are taking a “wait and see” approach.Nonetheless, this new movement points to positive developments amongst the rank and file. UAW members have stated that they rarely see these numbers in one meeting, let alone a meeting that has not been sanctioned by the UAW leadership at Solidarity House.
There have also been offshoots of SOS, basically, local organizing branches. Between actions and larger meetings, these locals provide a space for ongoing dialogue between workers. The meetings usually happen in restaurants that have shown support to the militants.
During periods of stability, conservative perspectives take hold. In periods of crisis, different forms of thinking and practice emerge. I would say that SOS embodies new conclusions. Many of the workers are facing job liquidation. They understand the outcome of this and it has become clear that the corporations are the opposition, and that their own unions have been complicit. This has opened up space for a range of politics to emerge and get a hearing.
A combination of the urgency of the struggle and the ultra-democratic principles of SOS, has allowed for the development of co-operative relations between those who would consider themselves rank and file trade union reformers (and from the working class sector of the Democratic Party) and those who have a more “Left” bent to their politics including a radical syndicalist current. Notable here are the Kokomo, Indiana organizers some of whom identify as Wobs (IWW) while still carrying membership in the UAW. These organizers also play a large role in managing the Future of the Union website.
Also of important here is that SOS is independent and organizing “horizontally at the… point of production” (Gregg Shotwell, Live Bait and Ammo #57). Although it is primarily a movement to defend auto workers against deep cuts and layoffs, SOS has made it clear that they see their struggle tied up in the broader struggles of the working classes. Many cities that have been historically dependent on auto have been in a period of decline for decades. SOS is trying to raise the issue that this struggle is far beyond auto jobs, but is instead about the quality of life for their communities and for future generations. Flint and Detroit, once the car capitals of North America, are faced with high unemployment and crime rates, crumbling infrastructure, and massive financial debt. These cities provide a glimpse of what lays in store for much of the Midwest’s manufacturing centers. SOS is acutely aware of this.
Increasing the Pressure – From the Shop Floor to the Streets
Outside of the rank and file meeting, SOS has spearheaded two events. The first was mobilizing for a picket at the International Auto Show which is an annual event held in Motor City, Detroit. The second was a protest in Flint which initially had local UAW backing but who pulled out the night before in effect sabotaging the event. Both of these were met with mixed results.The first event had a total participation between 500 and 700. And was attended by UAW members, Canadian Auto Workers, and various Left groups who are active in the Detroit area and have an orientation towards labor. The object of the protest was to disrupt auto’s annual gala. While new car designs would be unveiled, auto workers would be out in the streets drawing attention to the fight to save their jobs. the auto show also draws out the international media. SOS organizers had hoped to take advantage of this fact and project their struggle around the world. The smaller numbers definitely had an impact on the protest , and the media were carted in through the back entrance essentially missing the protest. Still, for SOS, it helped bring organizers together, create a camaraderie, and on a local level increase their visibility.
The second event was a protest held in Flint. The protest was intended to draw attention to new plant closures, and SOS organizers had managed to get UAW Local 651 Delphi Flint East on board. Organizers had taken out newspaper advertisements, contacted local Delphi retirees, and had even got a marching band to attend the rally – to play New Orleans style deaths march music to highlight the mood of the event. However, the night before the event, Local 651 president Russ Reynolds pulled official UAW support out and urged people not to attend. Citing weather conditions, Reynolds in essence sabotaged the rally. There had been a snow storm that night but surprisingly no other establishment or school was shut down. Also, the later half of the rally was to be held in the Locals hall where people would have been safe and dry.
The build up to the event was often shaky itself with threats by the Local’s leaders to bar SOS members from attending. With accusations of “anti union” or “Reds”, UAW officials are looking to discredit rank and file dissidents.
Still, SOS militants showed up and rallied. Like the previous auto show rally, the Flint experience helped to cement relationships and increased SOS’s reputation as a determined movement.
Risks for SOS
An important question of SOS is of where it sees itself going. The difficult task for SOS, especially if the struggle deepens, is to remain independent politically and committed to mass, popular organizing at the grassroots. SOS must resist the turn towards electoralism – union and beyond. Attempts to turn the SOS into a pressure group have to be fought off, and key organizers must make a personal commitment to remaining amongst the base at the shop floor level.Another risk is personal attacks being leveled at militants. The bureaucracy and corporations, attempting to maintain control, will work to undermine dissidents. Already, SOS and some of it’s key organizers are being blamed by the media for creating an environment that has caused doubts at Toyota regarding their recent plans of building a plant in southeastern Michigan. According to the Detroit Free Press, concerns “about the UAW -- and especially about a splinter group that has bucked both the union and corporate leaderships -- may hurt economic prospects by turning Toyota away from Michigan. Citing demonstrations and calls for grassroots action against UAW leaders by the dissident workers, which call themselves Soldiers of Solidarity (SoS)…” Toyota is considering a back out of it’s plans. In a region that is going through an economic downturn, the idea that the SOS is the cause for scaring off potential jobs could be devastating to the movement by driving a wedge between it and potential allies. SOS has to counter this propaganda.
Other dangers relate to struggle in isolation. The Transport Workers Union strike in New York during December of 2005 was a highly visible struggle. The strike was immediately felt by the city given that NYC is very dependent on mass transport for it’s basic functioning. Defying the State and it’s own international, TWU struck and through their action may have stopped, for the time being, cuts in their health benefits and pensions. However, a strike by auto workers could share the same fate as that of recent airline struggles - notably, the AMFA strike. If links are not made between industries and sectors of the public, we could see some important and dynamic fights happening, but limited to local areas, they could struggle on without greater support. This would mean an end for any strike. The only hope for a protracted strike would involve building a solidarity movement that acts together and responds to the different sectors needs - in other words, building for a mass strike that could level massive disruption to the State, Corporations, and economy. There is no guarantee that such a strike would halt this spiral downwards, but it could prevent a one-sided loss on the part of working people.
Considerations for Radical Anti-authoritarians and Class Struggle Anarchists
An important task for us is the figuring out of forms of intervention and aiding in the development of a solidarity movement. With participation we should argue for both defending and building on SOS’s already existing directly democratic and radical forms of organization. Taking the lead from these militants, we need to expand on the following: concepts of horizontal organizing as opposed to top-down directives; direct action as opposed to reliance on negotiations made by the bureaucracy; and movement towards a mass strike across society. If the struggle continues and sharpens, remains outside of and independent of Solidarity House, and grows, then this situation could touch thousands across the US and internationally.However, in our efforts we need to be able to “bring” something to the table. For those of us not in the plants we can start by organizing sectors who may not be immediately orienting towards this movement. We need to establish solidarity groups and initiate campaigns that engage a broader stratum of people laying out how the Auto industries restructuring plans are part of a broader capitalist offensive against the working classes and poor. The success of the SOS struggle is tied up in the ability of our class to rally to it. This means popularizing the struggle and transforming it from an isolated movement to one that is identified and supported in other labor sectors and in communities.
C. Alexander is a revolutionary anarchist and anti-fascist residing in Michigan. He was a founding member of the recently disbanded, F.R.A.C. (Federation of Revolutionary Anarchist Collectives – Great Lakes). He currently works in the healthcare industry.
From the forthcoming issue of WORKERS SOLIDARITY, publication of the anarchosyndicalist Workers Solidarity Alliance (WSA) 339 Lafayette Street #202, NY NY 10012. mailto:[email protected]