WASHINGTON DC (Oct. 18 2004)--On Sunday, October 17th workers, activists and concerned citizens joined together at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. for the Million Workers March. The march was part of a new social movement organized around issues of social justice, workers rights, civil liberties and the role of the U.S. government abroad. Speakers included well-know progressives including Danny Glover, Martin Luther King III, Dick Gregory and the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Although the turnout was lower than expected, many who attended considered the march a great success. The march was initially proposed by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), Local 10 as a way to address the relationship between the occupation of Iraq and growing social and economic crises at home. ILWU Local 10 has long been considered one of the most progressive unions in the United States and is remembered by many for its opposition to the apartheid regime in South Africa and for its unswerving boycott of military goods sent in support of the brutal dictatorship of El Salvador in the 1980s.

The independent spirit of the ILWU was conveyed in the philosophy of the march: "Only our own independent mobilization of working people across America can open the way to addressing our needs and our agenda."(1) The march was envisioned as an independent gathering, free from party politics and bureaucratic control. Although many participants were vocal in their anger at the Bush administration, the march did not endorse the Kerry campaign or the Democratic Party. The message of the march signals a new direction for organized labor in the United States, long known for being securely positioned in the hip-pocket of the Democratic Party.

Drawing on the lessons of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement, the event brought together a wide variety of organized/unorganized labor, community and interfaith organizations to form an independent coalition able to operate outside the boundaries of existing configurations of power. The message of the march was broad and multifaceted, calling for a social, economic and political movement for working people. The demands put forth by organizers and participants included universal health care, decent paying jobs and an end to the corporate and banking oligarchy that uses the State to achieve its goals. "Let us mobilize together through our unions, labor councils, social and community organizations, friends and neighbors everywhere. We are on the move and we shall not be denied."(2)

Sandra Rivers, an activist from New York in solidarity with the ILWU feels strongly about the possibility of solidarity between labor and community groups. When asked about the impetus for the march, Rivers replied that the march represents the culmination of 15-20 years of discontent among the working population. Continuously deteriorating living standards for poor people in America have led activists such as herself to support the formation of a third party. Rivers supported the autonomy of the march in spite of the fast-approaching presidential election. When asked whether the Democratic Party needs to reconsider its relationship to working people in America she agreed, saying "Democrats barely pay lip-service to American workers and approve policies that are detrimental." She went on to argue that organizations like the AFL-CIO have securely allied themselves with the Democratic Party, removing themselves from the fight for workers rights on important issues like health care: "If major labor unions were doing what they should be doing they would have fought hard against Bush stealing the election and for real workers rights like health care." Many who attended the march shared River's sentiment. If organized labor is to become a part of a strong social movement for change, it must disentangle itself from the convoluted politics of the Democratic Party.

This is no easy task, and has thus far met with strong opposition from the national labor federation. The AFL-CIO denounced the march and encouraged "state federations, area councils and central labor councils not to sponsor or devote resources to the demonstration in Washington D.C."(3) The federation urged its members to "remain focused on the election and to devote all mobilization efforts to the grass-roots political campaign effort...."(4) When asked about the position of the AFL-CIO, Laura Chenven a representative of D.C. Labor for Peace and Justice and member of the CWA-Newspaper Guild Local 35, responded that the AFL-CIO was not as staunch in its position as it portrayed itself to be. In fact, explains Chenven, "the national federation has actually been forced to reformulate its position on the march. When organizations like the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists (CBTU), Latin America Council for Labor Advancement (LACLA) and the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA) endorsed the march, the AFL-CIO was forced to soften its stance." According to Chenven, this is one illustration of the fact that "the AFL-CIO is in turmoil - the situation in the U.S. has created a huge conflict." The change in attitude shows that when major organizations representing immigrant and minority workers in the U.S. take a stand against the national, the AFL-CIO is not in a position to turn a deaf ear. It is no longer able to ignore the demands of workers. "U.S. labor will no longer stand mute against decisions by the national organization," Chenven emphasized.

The move toward autonomy by certain sectors of labor has not arisen solely from disagreement over domestic issues. Chenven credits the movement behind the march with forcing the Iraq war to become an election issue. The vibrant anti-war opposition before the start of the occupation and the continued resistance by groups like Military Families Speak Out has forced the presidential candidates to discuss the future of the occupation and more importantly, to justify to working-class and poor Americans - the people most likely to have loved ones in Iraq - why their sacrifice is necessary . Bob Goldsmith, a New York Veterans for Peace member agreed that the war and poor people's role in the military need to be addressed more vigorously. Drafted to Vietnam in 1962, Goldsmith believes that today disadvantaged young people are forced to go into the military if they want to get a degree or a good job. "American soldiers are making a sacrifice, but not everyone in the U.S. is - rich people aren't going to Iraq, poor kids are going." Goldsmith believes that Kerry will make a difference in alleviating the burden on American soldiers because unlike Bush, he is not "arrogant" and will be able to build a coalition with other countries to share the troop burden. Pete Bronson, a former member of the United Federation of Teachers and current president of Veterans for Peace disagreed with Goldsmith. "Kerry just wants to win," he said, and if elected Kerry will definitely increase the number of troops sent to Iraq.

Pete Bronson embodies the type of individual spearheading the social movement for change. As a veteran, an activist and former union member, Bronson illustrates how workers are embedded in the social structure of society. Sustainable change must occur on a broad scale, moving beyond the workplace to all spheres of society. The march embodied this logic. Not only was it a chance for different kinds of workers to make their voices heard, but more importantly, it was a chance for different parts of the movement to see their connectedness. Sam Weinstein, a member of the Utility Workers of America in Washington D.C., believes this connectedness is the only thing that will save organized labor in the United States. "The AFL-CIO faces too many constraints and alienates too many workers," he argued. Just as the CIO was revolutionary in the 1930s for its efforts to organize non-skilled workers, today organized labor is starting to realize that women, minorities and immigrants must be recognized and brought into the coalition of organized labor. "This march represents someone making a demand on organized labor," Weinstein said, "all workers need protection."

Like Weinstein, Nell Myhand and Ruth Todasco believe that all people are workers and thus one cannot understand workers' rights as something separate from human rights. Myhand and Todasco represent people who have been ignored by organized labor in the past. The two women sat beneath the Invisible Workers Tent, a tent representing people who are often not considered workers at all, like prisoners and prostitutes. These two women help to organize the Global Womens Strike that takes place every year on March 8th - International Women's Day. The annual strike is the product of an international network of women in 60 countries who go on strike to demand pay equity in the global market. Todasco quoted a telling statistic: "2/3 of the world's work is done by women, but women only get 5% of the income and control 1% of the wealth." The Invisible Workers coalition speaks out for a diverse spectrum of people, demanding a more encompassing definition of what it means to be a worker. Sam Weinstein believes that recognizing workers like these is essential to building an international labor movement. "You can no longer win anything nationally - you must organize internationally." The Million Workers March, by beginning to redefine the boundaries of 'worker', signaled that a new movement for progressive change is developing. The small turnout is a sign that the road will be arduous, but like all great social movements it is starting from the ground up. Building a movement for change that will challenge the existing social and political structure in America requires an independent and hard-working core of dedicated individuals - the Million Workers March brought these individuals together and in doing so was unquestionably a success.

1 www.millionworkermarch.org
2 ibid
3 www.ufcw.net/articles/docs/2004-08-27_million_worker_march.html
4 ibid