|
A DARE Analysis of the Coalition of Labor Union
Women (CLUW) from the DARE archives
(1974)
(Editors Note: This analysis of CLUW from the archives of Direct Action
for Rights in Employment (DARE) is a thoughtful and optimistic view
of CLUW written shortly after its founding convention.)
The
possible shape of the American labor movement of the future was underscored
when more than 3,000 women from at least 58 international unions met
to gain a voice in union and nationwide affairs. The Coalition of Labor
Union Women (CLUW) — brought into existence by an extremely diversified
group of women - may prove to be an extremely viable force in this country.
The striking fact about the founding convention was that the large majority
of participants (at least 2,000 out of the 3,000) were not left women,
nor were they union staff women. They were rank & file women whose
presence indicated that there are enormous numbers of women who are
angry and that those numbers can be brought together.
Without
the rank & file participation this convention could have been just
another arena for movement and union staff women to fight in. Because
the national response was so good and the enthusiasm people left with
was so high we are left with a mass based organization beyond anyone’s
wildest dreams.
The following
is an analysis of what happened March 22 -24 and some thoughts on
what will happen now. Copies of the Statement of Purpose and Structure
and Guidelines which came out of the convention will be available
in the CWLU office soon.
A discussion
of the Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) must be divided into
four general, but overlapping, categories:
- The
forces involved
- The
struggles within the conference,
- Assessment
of the conference, DARE’s role, and overall reaction,
- Potential
of CLUW
The
women who planned the conference were from union staffs, without exception.
Though they had varying political perspectives, they had a common
interest in the implementation of their original ideas for CLUW. The
importance of CLUW — getting so many women together to fulfill
real needs within a collective (and hopefully activist) framework — is
obvious. However, the amount of control which this small influential
group exerted,at times, served their own interests and not the interests
of the larger, less powerful, delegation on the floor. As the issues
discussed at CLUW do affect all working women — staff and rank
and file alike. It cannot be said that all control exerted was out
of self—interest.
Many times
it was hard to decide what was an overbearing exertion of power and
what were legitimate decisions in an attempt to represent all groups.
The original
planners indicated that they were concerned that CLUW’s birth was
“legitimate” so that they would be taken seriously by the
labor powers that be. Thus, in discussions of issues which dealt with
liberal attitudes (e.g. racial issues), no control was exerted. However,
in discussions of issues which, if brought to a vote, would have made
CLUW too radical in the planners’ eyes (e.g. passing a pro—UFW
resolution despite AFL—CIO neutrality), their control was definitely
felt.
A large
number of women at the conference were on the left, some staff and
some rank and file. This was a fairly influential force in that they
were at the microphones many times to encourage everyone to make CLUW
a strong radical organization. Some of these women were able to sway
the conference because of their ability to clearly state their arguments
pro or con on issues. Hence, language changes in the Statement of Purpose
created a more militant stance, including international solidarity
with all working people and, especially, with minority women, who are
the most oppressed.
Others within
the left forces were much more militant their presentations and DARE
feels strongly that their influence was detrimental to the future of
CLUW. (The most vocal were the Militant Action Caucus of the Communication
Workers of America [CWA] and the Sparticist League) By insisting that
all language, issues, ideas, resolutions, etc. be stated in left rhetoric
and that CLUW be put forward as a body to fight capitalism, these women
succeeded in alienating almost everyone, used up valuable time on essentially
unimportant points, and, in effect, played into the hands of those
in control. Their actions created widespread support for the chair
to close discussions and to adjourn sessions before important votes
were taken.
This problem
must be dealt with at future conferences or control will continue to
be handed to the labor bureaucrats on a silver platter.
A large
majority of women at the convention were rank and file. Out of the
3,300 women who attended, at least 2,000 were women from the factories,
shops, and offices who had never been to anything like this before.
Few had experience in the movement outside of activities within their
own unions. Many were overwhelmed, yet still excited, by the weekend.
By the end there were strong feelings of unity among everyone and a
positive atmosphere in terms of the future of CLUW. Despite the length
and intensity of the weekend (perhaps because of it) and despite the
antagonisms perpetuated by the “militant” left, everyone appeared to leave with an
identity as a CLUW member.
There was
a great deal of struggle within unions (between the more active rank
and file and the more dictatorial leadership), between unions (most
the UFW and the IBT), and between the left and the planners. Because
of the strong sentiments on both sides, the UFW issue was the biggest
struggle and took precedence over all else most of the time. Because
of a threatened walkout by the Teamsters if a pro—UFW stand was
taken, and because the convention seemed to be much in favor of taking
a pro—UFW stand, an enormous amount of time was spent lobbying,
making speeches, and generally trying to start or stop a movement toward
a vote. The UFW issue might not have taken on such importance if the
conference planners had not tried to prevent it from coming up at all,
and if the vocal left hadn’t been as antagonistic over the issue
from the beginning. The planners orchestrated a solution which did not
jeopardize their position — a show of sympathy without official
support. A representative of the UFW was invited to the platform to
speak and then ~ Clara Day of the Teamsters made a general statement
of sisterhood without endorsing the UFW cause. Amidst the high emotion
created by a UFW—Teamster embrace, one of the planners announced
that the UFW and the Teamsters had agreed not to take a vote, which
the UFW later flatly denied was true. When UFW and militant left forces
tried to force a vote, the sentiment could not be swayed away from the
chair. (Previous left attempts to demand recognition from the floor
and to demand that the rules be suspended created hostility to these
attempts at this time.)
Because
the resolution supporting the UFW was referred to the National Coordinating
Committee (NCC), there is still a chance that a position will be taken,
but that remains to be seen.
Other struggles
were not as clear, but were possibly more important in that they dealt
with decisions on CLUW’s structure and guidelines and resolutions.
No final votes were taken on these and they were referred to the NCC.
This suited the planners for the Statement of Purpose, which had been
fully discussed, modified, and voted upon section by section, was changed
to include some very militant perspectives.
During the
UFW discussions a significant vote was taken which shouldn’t be
ignored. A guideline which gave CLUW authority to refuse its support
in any jurisdictional disputes was deleted from the Structure and Guidelines.
This deletion was significant in that it clearly proved that the consensus
was with the UFW.
Jurisdictional
disputes are very much a matter for concern for not only labor staffs
but for the rank & file as well. It was only because of the feeling
that this guideline was there to block any action for the UFW that the
convention voted to .delete. This is a clear example of how attempted
manipulation on the part of the planners was overruled.
It is important
to say that no one faction won or lost any of the battles during the
convention (except perhaps the planners). The organization ended up
with a progressive character, and though future practice by chapters
may not reflect that character, the basis is there.
Assessing
the conference, several conclusions can be drawn. One is that the left
forces (excluding the more militant factions) must be better organized
and have a clearer understanding of how to influence such situations.
DARE members were prepared to speak to certain points in smaller workshops,
but was not able to join forces with other left women in a common strategy
at the microphones on the convention floor or some other means to influence
the convention. A mass base must be developed before this can be achieved.
The second
conclusion is that there is a need for CLUW — as proved by the
fact that 3,300 women came, despite poor publicity and little monetary
help from the unions. With work, these women’s needs can be met.
Third, CLUW
is important to the whole labor movement. With good strong use of its
potential power, it can become much more than a source of concern for
the labor powers that be, and for the employers at the workplace.
Fourth,
CLUW does have the resources to realize that power if the NCC, the
state conveners, and everyone who attended organize immediately.
Translating
CLUW’s stated purpose into practice is the job of local chapters.
The first step has to mobilize and organize the women who attended the
convention and women who are interested in CLUW.
The goals
of CLUW are large and must be narrowed down to give women the feeling
that they can be part of the movement in concrete ways. CLUW activities
must speak to definitive problems which all the women can relate. That
means that CLUW cannot take on the task of organizing the unorganized
without first speaking to the needs of members of CLUW.
A possible
first step to initiate Illinois chapters could be a statewide meeting
to discuss structure of chapters and, more importantly, to provide
some basic information the women can take back to their union locals
to start work. One possibility is a panel—workshop day on collective bargaining
victories in the areas of equal pay, maternity leave, etc. and a discussion
of how and why these victories were won.
Another
high priority must be in mobilizing women who were not at the convention
into CLUW, possibly by using speaking tours of women who were at the
convention.
There are
several categories of concern —— education, legislative reform,
affirmative action, organizing the unorganized, encouraging women to
become leaders on all levels in their unions, decisions etc., but where
to go with these are decisions which cannot be made yet. Establishment
of a steering committee of sorts to work out a program for individual
chapters should be a priority.
CLUW’s
founding convention is a beginning of a potentially strong and influential
organization. With struggle by those who want to achieve progressive
reforms beyond their own sectarian interests, the women’s movement
and the labor movement will move.
|
