the Voice of
The Communist League of Revolutionary Workers–Internationalist
“The emancipation of the working class will only be achieved by the working class itself.”
— Karl Marx
the Voice of
The Communist League of Revolutionary Workers–Internationalist
“The emancipation of the working class will only be achieved by the working class itself.”
— Karl Marx
Feb 17, 2003
After U.S. Air and United went to the bankruptcy court in order to extort concessions from their workers, other airlines stepped up to demand the same concessions. And they didn’t even bother to go through the bankruptcy routine. American simply demanded 1.8 million dollars in "labor cost savings"–that is, cuts in wages, benefits and jobs. Delta, whose workers are for the most part not in any union, announced that it would have to match what the other companies get. And Northwest, saying that it too had to keep up with the competition, announced that it would cut costs by 1.5 billion dollars a year, most of it by reducing labor costs. And all the airlines are now talking about setting up "low-cost" airlines–in other words, subsidiaries to take part of their own traffic. As for "low cost"–it doesn’t really mean much lower ticket prices. But it surely will mean much lower wages and many fewer benefits.
Of course, all the big airlines claim to be losing money. And sooner or later they all bring out the specter of September 11, even if it is getting a little tattered, given how many different companies and politicians already used it to justify attacks on the working class and on the population.
The issue is not really company losses over the last few years. If that really were so, all these airlines would have given very big wage and benefit increases during the good years–and they didn’t do that. Some gave minimal increases, some gave none. But all are demanding bigger and bigger concessions today, when they have these supposed losses.
Nor is the issue the bankruptcy courts–the courts are just the club that U.S. Air and United used to extort concessions, making it seem like the workers have no choice.
The real issue here is how much all of them can convince their workers to give up before the workers begin to fight back.
They will not stop taking until the workers put a stop to it. When the workers are ready to fight, money can be found–even at the companies whose balance sheets today seem to be in the most desperate situation. Behind those companies stand some of the biggest investment banks in the world, with holdings in the trillions of dollars. Linked to those airlines are hundreds of subsidiaries they set up to drain off some of their profits in the good years.
There is a whole capitalist class in this country that, either directly or indirectly, has a stake in the big airlines. That’s where the money is, plenty of it. Over the last few decades, it has been taking an ever bigger share of the wealth the working class produces, robbing from us.
There is no lack of money. And the workers can have it back–if they fight to put their hands on it. The airline workers certainly have every reason to fight today, since their standard of living is being so openly threatened. But if they begin to struggle, there are many other workers who could join them. All of us, in one way or another, find ourselves in the same boat. The more of us to make a fight, the more we have the forces to wrench more of that money away from where the capitalists are hiding it.
We should not give up a single penny more to these wealthy thieves.
Feb 17, 2003
As soon as Bush finished his State of the Union address threatening war with Iraq, gas prices began to soar. In Chicago, the price rose by 16¢ a gallon to about $1.80. The same thing happened in Los Angeles.
The war has not yet broken out, and Iraqi oil continues to flow into this country. In fact, more has been coming in to make up for the events in Venezuela. But that doesn’t stop the "markets," which are fine tuned to anything that lets them gouge out some extra profit.
In the event of the war, the price will skyrocket still more. But it will be only a very tiny part of the price we will pay for this war–a price measured in monetary and human terms.
Feb 17, 2003
More than 65 cities and counties across the country have adopted resolutions opposing a war against Iraq. These include some major cities such as Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C., Seattle, Cleveland, Milwaukee, San Francisco and Oakland, California. And at least 70 other local governments–even New York and Los Angeles–have taken up such measures.
What’s the meaning of this? Have these local politicians decided to rebel against the Bush administration? Hardly! Politicians know, of course, that such resolutions are symbolic and don’t prevent Bush from going to war. And many of the resolutions, while appearing to oppose the war, do so only because the U.N. hasn’t yet given its blessing. Many of these same politicians, once the war starts, will pass resolutions backing it, in the name of "supporting our troops."
Nonetheless, we can ask, why are so many politicians eager to appear to be jumping on the anti-war bandwagon?
There is only one logical explanation: they are looking over their shoulders at the widespread anti-war sentiment which exists in the population.
Newspapers and TV channels keep publishing polls which supposedly show that the majority of the American people are in favor of a war on Iraq. This wave of anti-war resolutions reflects what the real sentiment is.
Feb 17, 2003
The following is a resolution adopted by trade unionists opposed to a war against Iraq
WHEREAS, over 100 trade unionists from 76 local, regional and national unions, central labor councils and other labor organizations representing over 2 million members gathered in Chicago for an unprecedented meeting to discuss our concerns about the Bush administration’s threat of war; and
WHEREAS, union members and leaders have the responsibility to inform all working people about issues that affect their lives, jobs and families, and to be heard in the national debate on these issues; and
WHEREAS, the principal victims of any military action in Iraq will be the sons and daughters of working class families serving in the military who will be put in harm’s way, and innocent Iraqi civilians who have already suffered so much; and
Whereas, we have no quarrel with the ordinary working class men, women and children of Iraq, or any other country; and
Whereas, the billions of dollars spent to stage and execute this war are being taken away from our schools, hospitals, housing and Social Security; and
Whereas, the war is a pretext for attacks on labor, civil, immigrant and human rights at home; and
Whereas, Bush’s drive for war serves as a cover and distraction for the sinking economy, corporate corruption and layoffs; and
Whereas, such military action is predicted actually to increase the likelihood of retaliatory terrorist acts; and
Whereas, there is no convincing link between Iraq and Al Qaeda or the attacks on Sept. 11, and neither the Bush administration nor the UN inspections have demonstrated that Iraq poses a real threat to Americans; and
Whereas, U.S. military action against Iraq threatens the peaceful resolution of disputes among states, jeopardizing the safety and security of the entire world, including Americans; and
Whereas, labor has had an historic role in fighting for justice; therefore
We hereby establish the "U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW)"; and Resolve that U.S. Labor Against the War stands firmly against Bush’s war drive; and Further resolve that U.S. Labor Against the War will publicize this statement, and promote union, labor and community antiwar activity.
Adopted January 11, 2003 in Chicago, IL.
Feb 17, 2003
On January 11 over 100 unionists from 76 local, regional and national unions met in Chicago and set up U.S. Labor Against the War. Since that time, 102 local unions have endorsed resolutions against the war in one form or another. Also 13 regions or districts have passed resolutions including the very large AFSCME DC 37 in New York and the Association of Flight Attendants’ United Airlines Council. Further, 25 central labor bodies have passed motions against a war, including those in Los Angeles, Seattle, Cleveland and Philadelphia.
The local union resolutions often build on the resolution passed by the U.S. Labor Against the War meeting. (See the resolution reprinted here.) Some important locals endorsing these resolutions include UAW Local 600 at Ford and other companies in the Detroit area; Local 909 at the GM transmission plant in Warren, Michigan; Teamsters Local 705 at UPS and many trucking companies in Chicago; Teamsters Local 85 in San Francisco; the American Postal Workers in New York and Philadelphia; the Transport Workers Union in the New York subways and buses; and the Food & Commercial Workers Local 770 in Los Angeles supermarkets.
Seven international unions have passed resolutions on Iraq. They range from small unions such as the United Electrical Workers and the United Farm Workers to the State, County, Municipal Employees; the Service Employees; the Communications Workers; American Postal Workers and UNITE, the garment and textile union. The resolutions vary greatly, from opposing a war when the U.S. or countries allied to it haven’t been attacked, to a disguised support for a future war. This is the case with the American Federation of State, County Municipal Employees (AFSCME) which brags that it supported Bush in his "war on terrorism"–which is what Bush first called the war against Afghanistan and now calls the war on Iraq. AFSCME says, "Our nation’s long-term interests require that we assemble a broad international coalition for an aggressive and effective policy of disarmament in Iraq–and work through the United Nations .... We must assure them [the armed forces] that war is the last option, not the first, used to resolve this conflict before we ask them to put themselves in harm’s way to protect the rest of us." The ground has been laid so that when the war breaks out, AFSCME will say it called for restraint, but now has to support the war. Nonetheless, even these statements by international unions are a response to the pressure they are feeling from their members against a war.
The number of union bodies coming out against a war still remains small. And the resolution these bodies have passed contain illusions about the U.N. and about the U.S.‘s role in the world. Nonetheless, this is different from the full-fledged support for the Viet Nam war by the top leaders of U.S. labor and also the virtually unanimous support for the war last year in Afghanistan. The question now is whether these unions will mobilize workers to fight against the war.
In any case, every worker has reason to oppose this war.
Feb 17, 2003
The streets of cities around the world were filled with millions upon millions of demonstrators on the week-end of February 15 and 16, protesting U.S. plans for war on Iraq. According to New York Times articles, 750,000 demonstrated in London, 600,000 in Rome, with 500,000 in Berlin, and hundreds of thousands more in Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Barcelona. Hundreds of thousands more came out in cities around the world: Melbourne, Australia; Auckland, New Zealand; Cape Town and Johannesburg in South Africa; Seoul, South Korea; Tokyo and Manila. The Times reported demonstrations in 350 cities worldwide. These were all official estimates–undoubtedly low. These demonstrations show that this war which Bush intends is already a widely unpopular war.
Most significant–given that the U.S. is the architect of this war–were the 150 or more demonstrations inside the U.S. itself. According to an early report posted on the web by the New York Times about the New York demonstration, "Organizers estimated the crowd at 400,000 people. Given the sea of faces extending more than a mile up First Avenue and the ancillary crowds that were prevented from joining them, the figure was not wildly improbable." The demonstration in New York was massive, completely filling the whole of First Avenue from 49th Street to 72nd Street, and then spilling over onto side streets in between all the way over to Second, Third and even Lexington Avenues in some cases. A great big chunk of the Upper East Side of Manhattan was filled with people carrying all sorts of signs, ranging from "Stop the War Against Iraq" to "Duct and Cover."
The demonstration took part in this strange situation for two reasons. First the NYC Police Department–at the urging of the Bush administration–had refused a permit to allow the demonstrators to march, confining them instead to a single area, preventing their mass from ever being seen along one long avenue. But the place itself was chosen by the demonstrators who went to the U.N.–not in protest of the what the U.N. was doing, but as a kind of request to the U.N. to keep the U.S. from firing the first shot.
Many of the speakers reinforced the same idea, which was that the U.S. should not go to war on its own, not unless it has the backing of the U.N. Bishop Desmond Tutu urged Bush to "give the inspectors a chance." The same idea was expressed in many other demonstrations around the country on the same week-end.
It’s important for those who oppose this war not to put their hopes in the U.N. What happens there has to do with "big-power" politics and maneuvers, and not the interests of the people of the world. We should remember what happened before the Gulf War, when sizeable protests had begun to develop in this country. Then, too, many of the organizers of the protests asked that the U.S. put the issue in front of the U.N. to be solved "by diplomacy and peaceful means." But the U.N., which at the beginning appeared to slow down the march to war, gave the U.S. sufficient authorization so the elder Bush could claim that the U.S. did not go to war alone.
That being said, what was most important about this week-end was the massive size of the protest around this whole country. In addition to the hundreds of thousands who came to New York and to San Francisco–the site of the other big national protest–there were demonstrations in at least 150 other cities and towns, ranging from the 50,000 or so in Los Angeles to the hundreds in small towns.
Whatever illusions might have been reinforced by some of those who spoke at these demonstrations, the numbers of people who made the commitment to demonstrate expresses the wide spread opposition which today exists to this war. And this is what is most significant.
Feb 17, 2003
The French government deployed 2,500 elite troops in the Ivory Coast. Equipped with helicopters, light tanks and cannon, they imposed a cease fire on the insurgents, cutting the country in two. In this way they limited the progression of the insurgents in the north and west. They permitted President Gbagbo to safeguard a fragment of power and territory in the south and in the economic capital Abidjan.
The French government justified this intervention with the usual pretext: they were protecting 20,000 French and foreign nationals. If that had been true, France would have brought them out of Ivory Coast within three weeks, as other countries did. Yet no evacuation is on the agenda. The numerous French troops have another mission: to preserve the interests of French corporations in the Ivory Coast. These interests are diverse and very important.
French companies dominate the entire Ivory Coast economy, and all management and supervisory positions are occupied by French people. The building and public works sector is dominated by the French companies Bouygues and Colas. The French oil company TotalFinaElf owns 25% of the Ivory Coast refining company. A French fruit company controls 50% of the banana market. Insurance is under the thumb of the big French company AXA and big retailing is controlled by Pinalut. In addition Bouygues owns the electric company Ciprel, the Ivory Coast electric company and the water company. France Telecom dominates Ivory Coast Telecom and the Ivory Coast cellular company. Bolloré, a rich French investor, has helped himself to transportation, cotton production, and rubber. Air France owns 51% of the regional company Ivorian Air.... And this list is far from complete.
French troops have already intervened two times against the rebels in the west. Early in January there were fights between the rebels and French troops on the edge of the city of Duékoué. The result: almost 30 dead among the rebels and nine lightly wounded among the French soldiers. When Gbagbo’s henchmen killed, raped, and organized violent pogroms of ethnic groups in the north, the French soldiers did nothing. They left the way free for the "loyalist" troops of President Gbagbo instead to send combat helicopters against the rebel west, massacring several dozen civilians.
French imperialism may not be as large and powerful as U.S. imperialism, but it is just as violent and mean in its own sphere.
Feb 17, 2003
Even before they get rid of Saddam Hussein, U.S. leaders drew up a plan for Iraq’s oil reserves, the second largest in the world after Saudi Arabia’s.
According to the magazine Petrostrategies, the Pentagon and the White House intend to "closely control ... privatization of the largest part of this sector." The article says, "The large American oil companies must play the biggest role, leaving just a consolation part for the Russians, an honorable part for the British firms, and, if possible, nothing at all for the other European companies."
What the oil magazine doesn’t mention is that the U.S. already imports an estimated two thirds of all Iraqi crude oil.
But due to the so-called embargo after Papa Bush’s war against Iraq, U.S. oil corporations cannot import this oil directly. The U.S. oil corporations have to buy it from France’s TotalFinaElf, Britain’s Royal Dutch Shell and Russia’s Lukoil. So right now the European oil corporations are taking a nice piece of the profits.
The U.S. oil corporations like to talk about competition–by which they mean their right to get the lion’s share of any profits. The U.S. government is taking us to war to ensure they get it.
Feb 17, 2003
In Afghanistan, U.S. forces have increasingly come under fire from enemy guerrillas. In one recent incident in southern Afghanistan, U.S. Special Forces were ambushed by about 25 Afghan guerrillas. So they called in U.S. jets, which bombed a village, killing 17 Afghan civilians, including women and children. As always, the civilian population pays the highest price.
Officially, the 7,000 U.S. troops, along with several thousand more U.S.-hired mercenaries, are in Afghanistan for so-called "mopping up" exercises, rooting out the last pockets of resistance of the terrorists from the Taliban and Al Qaeda. But, in fact, the exact opposite is happening. The many sets of warlords who for 20 years have torn the country apart in endless civil war, have increasingly been contesting for control and profits from drug trafficking and other forms of smuggling. At least one powerful warlord, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, has also begun directly attacking the central government of Hamid Karzai that was installed by the U.S. government after the U.S. invasion last year.
These rivalries between the different warlords have been, in turn, fueled by the governments of the surrounding countries that are themselves competing for influence and power, making Afghanistan the center of a "circle of instability," according to the Afghan ambassador to the U.S., Ishaq Shahrayar. According to testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Services Committee, Pakistan’s intelligence service, the infamous and powerful Interservices Intelligence Agency (ISS), is "once again either turning a blind eye to or cooperating with" many groups opposed to the government of Hamid Karzai. These include the very same Taliban that the ISS had originally set up and helped bring into power before it was pushed out by the U.S. invasion last year. Also included are the Arabic fundamentalists and terrorists from other countries often said to be linked to Al Qaeda. And Pakistan is not alone. India and Iran are also backing other sets of warlords and terrorists inside Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, the millions of Afghan refugees from previous wars are returning to a country that remains almost completely pulverized, with most of the economy destroyed or paralyzed. The Afghan population continues to face famine, disease and abject misery.
All of this makes conditions ripe for the civil war to continue to rage, with this difference–this time U.S. troops are based in the country, playing a larger role, supporting one group of warlords against the other–and therefore contributing to the violence and misery as well.
After the U.S. had bombed and invaded Afghanistan last year, with great fanfare President Bush had promised the people of Afghanistan that the U.S. would end the civil war, make Afghanistan whole. In fact, once installed in Afghanistan, the U.S. military has simply made it into another base for its operations, another projection of U.S. imperial power over that part of the world.
Feb 17, 2003
On February 14, at the United Nations Security Council, the largest and most powerful governments in the world aired their differences over "what to do about Iraq." Of course, what was apparent throughout this debate was that only one voice really counted, that of the United States, the one superpower, the one dominant power in the world today.
The only reason the U.S. government had put the matter of war with Iraq before the U.N. was to make it seem like the whole world was condemning Iraq and calling for the U.S. to go to war. This could make it easier for U.S. officials to build support for the war, sell the war to the U.S. population. This is the only reason the U.S. government went through the charade of U.N. weapons inspections, public diplomatic debates, and the posing and posturing of France and Germany, that is, powers of secondary importance.
U.S. officials have made it abundantly clear that they never needed anyone’s permission, least of all that of the U.N., to launch this war. U.N. diplomats might talk and disagree with the U.S., but that never stopped the U.S. from acting. The U.S. continued to put the finishing touches on its enormous military build-up around Iraq and its own "coalition of the willing," etc. The countdown to a horrible, devastating U.S. war against Iraq was continuing to tick down.
That is not to say that the leaders of the U.S. government have been in any kind of hurry to unleash this war. U.S. officials have already pushed back the date of the impending war from January to February, and perhaps even later. Most likely, U.S. officials would prefer to allow extra time to encourage dumping Saddam Hussein by other means short of war, if at all possible. The slow deliberate build-up of U.S. forces has been used to pressure Iraqi officials to ease out Saddam Hussein and his direct retinue themselves–first through a military coup. Remember last fall when Bush’s Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, mentioned that just one bullet could avoid the entire war. When Hussein was not assassinated, when no military coup materialized, U.S. intermediaries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan began offering Saddam Hussein and his family asylum if he agreed to step down.
If that were to happen, it would be an ideal outcome for Bush. It would allow Bush to claim victory without risking the enormous casualties and domestic costs that an invasion would almost certainly entail. Of course that kind of victory would just encourage and reinforce the Bush administration’s outright right-wing and reactionary policies everywhere, including against the people in the U.S. itself.
As for the people of Iraq, replacing the rule of Saddam Hussein with that of a U.S. occupation would not at all be an improvement. Their country would become a semi-colony of the U.S., which would rule Iraq through the same exact repressive apparatus of henchmen, torturers, gangsters and mass murderers who worked under Saddam Hussein–Saddam Hussein’s regime without Saddam Hussein.
Of course, if Hussein is not eased out of power ahead of war, then the Bush administration has given itself the option of an invasion and occupation of Iraq. This war carries enormous risks, especially if the U.S. military meets up with substantial resistance from the Iraqi population, or if a protracted war weakens other regimes in the region that are tied to the U.S. But obviously, so far, the U.S. bourgeoisie has allowed the Bush administration to take this direction because of the potential payoff. Not only would the U.S. bourgeoisie gain control of the country with the second largest oil reserves in the world and the U.S. military secure an entire country in the center of the Middle East as its base. Above all, a successful war against Iraq would send a message to the rest of the world that anyone could face massive death and destruction at the hands of U.S. power, if they dared defy the U.S., with no other superpower to run to, or counterpose to the U.S.
This message is not just aimed at the countries of the Middle East or the rest of the underdeveloped world. It also means that the U.S. is imposing its domination over the imperialist powers of the second tier, like France and Germany, as well. In Iraq, the U.S. is giving these powers "an offer that they can’t refuse," that is, an ultimatum. Either they join the war, under U.S. terms, which include taking greater responsibility for a long and costly occupation of Iraq, or else they are not only left out of any settlement, that is, any division of the profits from Iraqi oil, they also risk that the Americans squeeze them out of other spheres of profit and control in other parts of the world.
This is why the governments of France and Germany are not opposing the U.S. war outright. They are only calling for waiting a little longer before going to war, using the U.N. to slow down the U.S. juggernaut against Iraq. This maneuver is being used to try to squeeze a somewhat better deal from the Americans and to mitigate U.S. bullying.
In fact, while their diplomats are protesting at the U.N., both the French and German governments have quietly let the U.S. military know that they wanted to give the U.S. a hand in its war. Both France and Germany long ago sent troops, planes and ships to the Persian Gulf. In other words, both powers have shown that they are ready to play a supporting role in the possible U.S. war, so long as they can get a chance for their own corporations to get a little bigger bite out of the Iraqi carcass at the end of the war.
Neither France nor the other countries of the U.N. intend on trying to stop the U.S. war against Iraq. All their fine words and rhetoric are just a cover for their own rapacious, if somewhat smaller imperialist appetites.
Feb 17, 2003
California Governor Gray Davis has proposed enormous cuts in all the services and programs that benefit the workers and poor: schools, health care, welfare. But there is one significant part of the state budget that Davis actually wants to expand: prisons. Davis proposes opening a new maximum-security prison, building a new, 160-million-dollar department headquarters, and remodeling and expanding California’s death row to the tune of 220 million dollars.
From the bosses’ viewpoint, this makes perfect sense. Companies have been busy laying off workers by the thousands to protect their profits. And the state is getting rid of social programs. The bosses know that throwing so many workers in the street without any help can only mean one thing: a foreseeable increase in crime.
What a comment on 21st century American capitalism: its biggest "growth industry" is the prison system.
Feb 17, 2003
Late in January, a line of people filing for unemployment still had not been taken care of by 3 p.m. at a Michigan state unemployment office in the city of Dearborn. When the office announced no more applications would be accepted, the crowd surged in.
A security guard who was trying to hold the crowd back had a heart attack and died.
There are more and more people who need state services and can’t get them, not only in Michigan but in nearly every state. Unemployment is high and rising, far higher than the official rose-colored statistics. With higher unemployment comes more need for welfare services, for services for children, for mental health services, for emergency housing and food rations.
But while the needs have been rising, the number of state workers who are supposed to fill those needs has been falling. In Michigan, there has been little hiring for years. Staffs have dwindled as few new hires replaced those who left. This meant departments loaded with high seniority people under more and more pressure.
Then the state offered an early retirement option. A large number of people took that option–and most have not been replaced. Staffs are overwhelmed. Even the automated call-in service to register for weekly unemployment is failing under the load. Workers lose their benefits if they do not register regularly by phone–but the phone system often does not work!
No wonder that frustration is high on all sides, leading to a near riot in a Dearborn office and a guard’s fatal heart attack.
But those who end up paying the price for this mess should not be the guard, or the people in the line, or the too-small office staff, or the workers who can’t get a phone call through. Those responsible are the politicians who have shorted human services while funneling state money to all kinds of casinos, airports, stadiums, and other playthings of the rich.
Those same politicians might suddenly find money for basic services if all those people not being served rushed into an office a little higher up–the governor’s, for example.
Feb 17, 2003
By 7 A.M. 2,500 people had already lined up outside Truman College on the North Side of Chicago. As February 4 wore on, many thousands more showed up–so many that the police had to close two exits from Lake Shore Drive. People were responding to rumors that applications were being taken for Ford’s Torrance Assembly plant. In fact there were no job applications–only an "orientation" session about jobs that might open up in 2004.
Government statisticians pretend that unemployment in the Chicago metro area is only 6.4% and only 8% in the city of Chicago. The crowd that showed up only because of a rumor says otherwise.
Feb 17, 2003
International Steel Group just agreed to buy bankrupt Bethlehem Steel for one and a half billion dollars. The hearts of the bosses, bankers and lawyers beat fast with joy. They were buying up Bethlehem Steel which was in bankruptcy court. The advantage for the bosses is that the bankruptcy court had already allowed Bethlehem to throw out parts of their contract with the United Steel Workers of America. Bethlehem was able to stop paying the health premiums and life insurance benefits of 95,000 Bethlehem retirees. And all pensions, for retirees and for the 11,000 still working, are tossed to the PBGC (the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation).
What does this mean for the workers? The amount of the pensions paid will be limited by the rules of the PBGC. For highly paid workers or those earning a lot of overtime, this means their pensions are cut considerably.
For workers still working, Bethlehem doesn’t have to put anything into their pensions from the time the bankruptcy terms are accepted. So those not yet retired will get reduced pensions from the PBGC compared to those already retired.
The PBGC was set up in 1974 after a scandal over the loss of workers’ pensions, particularly in the case of bankrupt automaker Studebaker.
Although PBGC has the word "guarantee" in its name, it really guarantees nothing–not even pensions, only a portion of some pensions. It is a federal agency, but receives no federal funds, only a ridiculous $19 charge per person per YEAR from those corporations with pensions it is guaranteeing.
PBGC was covering pensions of 800,000 workers from bankrupt companies before this most recent round of bankruptcies, like United Airlines, US Airways and Kmart, in addition to these new steel bankruptcies. This past year, the assets the PBGC had were not enough to cover its liabilities. It paid out eleven billion dollars more than it took in–and it is now three billion in debt.
For corporate America looking always to cut its expenses, the PBGC is a wonderful invention. And International Steel Group, which bought up Bethlehem, has plenty of experience with this kind of maneuver, using the bankruptcy courts against workers. The corporation was born two years ago from the remaining assets of LTV. LTV was a steel corporation which had been in bankruptcy court not once but TWICE, first in 1986 and then in 2000. Each time it was able to get rid of benefits while leaving steel assets for the next set of investors to gobble up.
Other steel companies are looking to do the same thing. Last month, U.S. Steel bid on bankrupt National Steel. National Steel is waiting to hear if the steel union will allow them to pass their pensions off to the PBGC. Another corporation has started a bidding war with them, since both companies expect they could make a profit in steel.
But these corporate tricks leave nothing for the work force, no matter how the consolidation of companies is carried out. Said an angry Bethlehem worker from the Sparrows Point plant outside Baltimore, "Most of us walk out of here with some type of health ailment. Most of us will work until the day we die because retirement is no longer an option. This is what Bethlehem Steel Corporation has done to us." A steel worker with 37 years at a division of National Steel said, "Everything I worked for is going to be taken away. I never thought it could come to this."
The steel bosses show everyone what way they want to go. But the future still depends on what the workers accept and on what they are ready to fight for.