Truth and Revolution - Michael Staudenmaier

Скачать книгу

Rothenberg, October, 2006. Nonetheless, Goldfield’s proposals to prioritize mass work were accepted by STO in its annual review at the end of 1972. George S., “A Critique.”

      Chapter Three: “A Science of Navigation”

      The November/December 1971 issue of the Insurgent Worker featured a fairly typical lead article about a recent job action at the Melrose Park International Harvester plant. IH Melrose was a massive factory that produced, among other things, bulldozers and other tractors. Entitled “Harvester Workers Walk Off Over Discrimination,” the piece told an inspiring story of worker solidarity in an antiracist context.185 The incident began when a “notorious racist” foreman in the small tractor department reassigned an older black worker—referred to throughout only as “Tiny”—into a job where he was responsible for work that had previously been handled by two white workers. Having set the worker up for failure, the foreman twisted the knife: Tiny would not receive the same bonus as his coworkers because he had not kept up with the work load. This sort of petty power-play was a daily occurrence at any large factory, and the racial aspect was hardly unusual. The official response from the union, United Auto Workers Local 6, was decent enough, if unexceptional: the departmental steward accompanied Tiny to the foreman’s office to initiate a grievance for racial discrimination.

      “What happened next,” in the words of the article, “was beautiful,” but it was not exactly predictable. Tiny’s coworkers shut down their assembly line, and then proceeded to inform other nearby departments and lines about the incident. In solidarity with Tiny’s grievance, workers in at least four other departments walked off their lines, and hundreds of them gathered spontaneously outside the office of the racist foreman. This action clearly violated the standard procedure for handling grievances, and management representatives threatened the workers with suspension if they didn’t return to their stations. No one complied. At this point the UAW representatives stepped in to broker a compromise: if the workers went back immediately, only the steward on Tiny’s line would be suspended. This too was unacceptable to the assembled workers, and they stood their ground until the company agreed to settle Tiny’s grievance on the spot and pay him his bonus. Having won their demand, the workers returned to their jobs.

      The Insurgent Worker does not indicate whether or not any STO members were involved in this action, but it certainly reflects the group’s approach to fighting white supremacy within the framework of the workplace organizing described in the previous chapter. By struggling, and winning a victory (however modest), around the demands of a black employee, the workers had enhanced their collective sense of power while taking a stand against racism. As the article noted: “A significant thing about this walkout was that it was initiated and led by black workers over the issue of white supremacist discrimination, and the majority of white workers supported the action and joined the walkout. All the workers regarded Tiny’s problem as their problem. This is the meaning of class solidarity.” In this sort of situation, STO’s primary objective was to draw white workers into such struggles, despite the hesitation of many whites to view discrimination as an issue that affected them. These efforts were not driven exclusively, or even primarily, by moral considerations. Instead, the organization’s opposition to white

Скачать книгу